All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:17:57
The Great Virus Myth - Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Bill Lionberger, Sept. 4, 2025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No time deep.
No.
Perfect.
We're humor.
Just save us some grace for the sake of us all We're holding that thin for a flash That's what we do.
We do it for you.
Hello, Dax Choice and Cloud Hub family.
Thank you so much for turn tuning into In the Lions Den, hosted by Dr. Bill Lionberger.
How are you doing today, Dr. Bill?
I'm doing great.
You look great today.
Thanks.
I'm starting to feel a little better, but I'm sick at the same time.
I'm feeling better mental health-wise, but physically wise.
I'm thinking I'm getting sick or have allergies or something.
But thank you, Dr. Bill.
Um, so today we have a new guest on the show, um, Dr. Tom Cowan.
He is a pioneering voice in holistic and alternative medicine.
He's known for challenging the conventional narratives with practical and common sense approaches to health and healing, the author of eight influential books, including The Human Heart, Cosmic Heart, The Contagion Myth, and Common Sense Childbearing.
He's inspired audiences nationwide through his lectures, workshops, and writings.
He's a founding board member and current vice president of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
He continues to educate, mentor, and provide resources through his websites and projects dedicated to new biology, nutrition, and wellness.
So we should have a very interesting episode today, Dr. Bill.
I'm excited for it.
Um, so let's make it happen.
All right, I'll be in the background enjoying the show, and I'll be back at the end for questions.
You know, today's show, the title is The Great Virus Myth: Rethinking the Foundations of Virology.
And, you know, I'm reminded as one of the original America Frontline Doctors, and we began to fight the fight of truth about what is and what's been going on, and now of course, you know, after we've looked at the whole COVID and stats with years of follow-up, yet the system continues to attempt to try to lie about the truth, obfuscate the truth, etc.
Um, our subject today is gonna strike at the very core of some of these um what they call viruses and or treatments for them, and um it should be very enlightening.
So today I want to peel back the layers of conventional wisdom as we question the foundation of health and disease and challenge the very core of virology as we know it.
For decades we've been told that viruses are the culprits behind a myriad of diseases, tiny invaders that hijack our cells, wreaking havoc on our health.
But what if I told you that this widely accepted accepted narrative may not hold up under scrutiny?
What if the very concept of a virus as we understand it is built on a house of cards, teetering on the edge of scientific uncertainty or outright fraud against humanity?
For far too long, we've been taught that viruses are the villains in our health narrative, tiny malicious agents that invade our bodies and cause illness.
But if what if this widely accepted story is not only flawed but fundamentally misrepresents the truth?
What if instead of being the enemy, viruses are actually a manifestation of our own biological processes, particularly the breakdown of our own tissues?
What if the scientific claims and foundations of virology are built on shaky ground, most notably the troubling lack of properly sequenced viral genomes and the absence of clear published studies that demonstrate the isolation of these so-called disease-causing particles.
Think about it.
Scientists have yet to present uniform particles emerging from sick individuals, uh raising serious questions about the validity of traditional virology model.
Could it be that we've been looking at this issue all wrong?
Are these viruses simply misunderstood components of our own cellular debris uh rather than the direct cause of disease?
And with that, I would like to bring on our esteemed guest today, Dr. Tom Cowan.
Hello, Tom.
How are you?
I'm okay, Bill.
How are you doing?
I'm doing good.
You know, I have pushed many, many, many high-profile, you know, experts and doctors into this realm.
And they they shy away from discussing the elephant in the room, right?
Um, something you've been contending with for a long, long time, just bringing the basic truth of what you know out there for scrutiny and evaluation, and yet it's the it's the very foundation for all of these industries, um, and what they're built on, right?
That's right.
So talk to us about virology and talk to us about what you know.
I mean, there's a bunch of ways of do that doing this, but one of the ways is going through the history of how we got here.
Yep.
So if you want me to do that, I'm happy to do that.
Absolutely.
I think it's probably fundamental.
Um, because people want to like skip ahead like the science is settled when actually it was it's old and it was kind of settled then that it wasn't settled, you know.
So yeah, so there's a bunch of places you could start, but let we could start in the late 1800s with guys like Pasteur and Robert Koch, who came up with what I would say is a radical theory that diseases were caused by unseen germs or microbes, and each disease, each specific disease, so even that was a stretch.
They said diseases are specific entities, and each of them has a specific microbial cause.
So they looked in um you know, in different models of sickness.
So one of the earliest ones was anthrax.
So they they said these symptoms mean you have anthrax in animals or people, and so they went looking for a microbe that was uh could cause this illness.
Now they found bacteria that they identified as anthrax in some of the people with the symptoms, and interestingly, some people who had no symptoms, and it's interesting if you think about this, and I like to make analogies so that people really understand what I'm talking about.
You know, if you went to a place and there was 10 um blown-up houses, and you said, Why are the houses blown up?
And in three of them you found skunks, and in three and ten normal houses, you also found three skunks.
It would be unusual to come to the conclusion that the skunks blew up the houses.
But anyways, they did that that they came to the conclusion that these anthrax bacteria were the cause, even though they weren't there and all the people are animals with symptoms, and they were there and people and animals without.
Then they did the thing which you would expect, uh, which is they the anthrax bacteria, in other words, grew it, so they had only the anthrax.
Now, this is very important, and again, let me give you another analogy.
If you wanted to say that there's an entity called a slammer, which knocks in nails by just pointing it at the nail, right?
And you say the slammer is in the toolbox, but if you look in the toolbox, you can't find a slammer, and you say, I'm going to prove that the slammer knocks in the nail, and the way I'm going to do it is I'm going to hit that the nail with the toolbox because I think the slammers in there, and if the nail goes in, that proves that slammers knock in nails.
Now, I think you would probably agree.
I don't know if it's true, but uh you can tell me if you don't, that would be goofy, right?
Because nobody would think first you have to find the slammer, isolate the slammer, hit the nail only with the slammer, and see if it goes in, right?
That's how you would do it.
So they took the anthrax bacteria, exposed it to sick to healthy animals and people, and nobody got sick.
And so this is presumptive evidence, but not proof, right?
It's proving the opposite that that isolated Thing that thing doesn't make people sick.
So what Pasteur did was he made what he called enhanced anthrax, which means he soaked the anthrax and arsenic and then he exposed the animals and the people to that, and then they got sick.
And he said, see, it's the anthrax that made them sick.
Now, again, I'm going to use this word.
That's goofy because how do you know it's not the arsenic?
In fact, if you just isolated arsenic and make gave that to animals and people, it would make them sick.
So, anyway, so that became the germ theory.
And so then they started looking at other diseases, and let's say the first one that they really went after was polio.
So they said the symptoms of polio are paralysis, right?
And it affects the anterior horn cells of the nervous system.
That's just part of our nerves.
So they did what you would expect.
They took some a child who died of polio, had diseased anterior horn nervous system tissue, took some of that, and looked for a bacteria.
They didn't find it, no bacteria.
So because they were wedded to the germ theory, they said there must be something smaller than a bacteria, which we can't see, and they called it a virus, which is the old Latin name for poison.
And then they said, We're gonna prove that it's this virus, which they can't see, they have no ability to see it or know that it's there, none.
So they said, we're gonna prove that that virus causes disease, and the way they did it was they took the spine, ground it up in a blender, filtered it to get you know cells and bacteria out.
So they had everything that's liquid in the spine, they injected it into the brain of two monkeys, about 10 ccs.
One monkey got paralyzed, the other died, and they said that proves that polio is caused by a virus, and that was called the isolation of the polio virus.
And I tell you, you know, I went through my medical career, I was a medical doctor 40 years, and I couldn't tell you how they proved that there were viruses, and when I read that, I thought you've got to be kidding me.
Now, after that was 1908, and then for about 45 years with thousands of monkeys, they did that isolation experiment over and over thousands of times, and never once did they inject just normal saline or milk or healthy spine or any what you would call a control,
not once, until 1953, when somebody, and I don't know the guy's name, said, I'm gonna take normal spine, right?
Not from anybody with polio, just normal spine, inject that into the monkey's brain, filter it, same everything was the same, and you know what happened?
Monkey got paralyzed, monkey died, and he said this that we proved the that was the proof for the virus, turns out to be not the case, but but by this time,
we're talking 1953, they had invented the electron microscope so they could see little particles in the spine, and in chicken pox lesions and measles snot and all kinds of other things, they couldn't find these particles in any person, animal or plant that's sick, and that's very important.
If you take any biological fluid of anybody with, say, polio or measles, you cannot isolate these particles, which are called viruses directly from that fluid, and everybody agrees with that.
So if everybody agrees that you can't isolate the very thing you're talking about, right?
I mean, you where's the foundation for anything above that?
I mean, literally here's what happened in 1954.
1953, they proved that injecting it into the brain is doesn't is not valid, right?
So 19 virology was dead at that point, but a guy named John Enders resurrected it, and this is the answer to your question.
Every virologist will say we have isolated every single bacteria that causes disease since that's this is what I'm about to say.
This is very important, is how they prove the existence of viruses.
This was a paper by John Enders, 1954.
He ended up getting a Nobel Prize for this research.
He he so they proved the measure the the inject brain injection thing was not right, right?
So they take a child with measles, they say this is caused by a virus, they take the mucus from the child, they again filter it just to get the bacteria and the dead debris out, and they have a liquid from this from the mucus, right?
With all kinds of things in there, they don't look for a virus because they can't see it, and they take that liquid and they put it on monkey kidney cells, and then they put uh antibiotics in the mix that are poisonous to kidney cells,
and then they take away the flip the nutrients of the cells, and then they add fetal bovine serum and calf serum and horse serum, and then they add chemicals like trypsin, and then they waited three days, and the monkey kidney cells died, and they call that the isolation of the measles virus.
So you start let me say one more thing before you go on.
He actually, in that paper, did all those steps, monkey kidney cell, antibiotics, took away the nutrients, horse serum, fetal bovine serum, trypsin, and he didn't add anything from anybody with measles, right?
And he he says in the paper, I could quote it, I've quoted it hundreds of times.
The results I got were indistinguishable.
In other words, he proved that there was nothing in the mucus of anybody from measles that had anything to do with the so-called cytopathic effect.
In other words, the dying of the monkey kidney cells to prove that which is all the same.
That is the isolation of the of any virus.
So you take SARS-CoV-2, the alleged cause of COVID, they take the lung fluid from somebody they say has COVID, they put that on monkey kidney cells, they take away the nutrients, they add the antibiotics, they add the horse serum, the monkey kidney cells die.
They don't do a control, they say we have isolated the virus, that's called a viral culture.
There is no other way that any virus has been isolated ever.
And if anybody disagrees, I don't want your opinion.
I want a study that shows a different way to isolate it.
The whole of virology is wedded to the viral culture experiment.
And it's been repeated now seven or eight times.
And we repeated it ourselves.
We took monkey kidney cells.
We did with and without antibiotics, with and without the nutrients, with and without the horse serum.
And we didn't add anything from anybody who could be sick with a virus.
And the cells broke down when you repeated their experiment.
This is proven to be a fraud.
From the very foundation, the assumptions That um continue to be made about what's there and what's in it, um, help disprove it.
Um they disproved it, yeah.
Therefore, there has never been a virrology experiment.
There has never been a virus sequenced because all they do is they take this viral culture, which now let's talk about what's in that viral culture, dead monkey kidney cells, horse serum, bovine serum, and whatever was in you, right?
That came out, all of those things have identical quote genetic material as a virus, then they break it down into 50 million different pieces, they have the computer arrange that into sequences, they get one million different options, and then they choose one and they say that's the virus.
Now, for anybody who then says the other thing you'll hear from your comments is, but we've seen pictures of it, right?
We see this is a picture of herpes virus, smallpox virus, and they're all the same, rabies virus, etc.
So here's how they get those pictures, right?
They don't just take the again, you cannot take a chicken pox lesion and purify out a virus and take a picture of it.
What they do is they do that cell culture experiment that I just described, they see particles in there that are broken down, they use an electron microscope, which means they freeze it and stain it and centrifuge it and dehydrate it, and then they get a picture of it and they say that's the virus.
Now I can show you 10 studies that show that will say we did the whole thing without adding anything from anybody with rabies or chicken pox or COVID, just dead monkey kidney cells, identical pictures, identical pictures, proving those pictures aren't they're cellular debris, really, yeah.
So when we talk about a house of cards and this whole industry of pharma built around building vaccines for this uh virus slash poison that they can't isolate in any real um form uh that is repeatable, right?
No, they had to change the definition of isolation.
We know that if you want to isolate a hammer from a toolbox, you open the toolbox, you pull the hammer out, and you have only the hammer.
We would think that if you want to isolate a virus from somebody with chicken pox, you get the lesion where they say the virus is, you pull out the virus, and you have only the virus.
That's never been done.
Isolation to them means you add all that to a cell culture, and if it breaks down from God knows what that somehow is in an Orwellian sense, is called isolation, which is almost an oxymoron to itself.
It's an oxymoron to itself, you are correct, right?
Um so you know, the greater the greater implications are that you know you have an entire industry that had to push our government for um protections against being sued for vaccines for these theoretical pathogens um that can't be properly um isolated, and it's all built on a house of cards.
So, yeah, and by the way, for those who are interested, what is a live viral vaccine?
So they remember the cell culture, they take the measles, they they filter it, they put it on the cell culture, the cell culture breaks down.
They put that broken down cell culture, which they claim has live viruses in it, and they put that in a vial, and that's a vaccine with the bovine serum and the antibiotics, and you know, they Clean it up a little bit, but that that is a live viral vaccine.
An attenuated viral vaccine is they take some of the proteins out of that, and they say those proteins came from a virus, and they put that in a vial, and that's a attenuated viral vaccine.
This is nonsense.
This is that that's the traditional approach.
And then, you know, fast forward to the messenger RNA bioweapon approach with all of the adjuvants and things that have been found, and then of course the the death and destruction and injury that's followed, using, I guess, those kinds of potential definitions of what is a virus treated by something that puts something in you that's never been done before and were the experiment.
Right.
But here's here's the problem that people don't talk about with that.
And including, I hate to say it, but the so-called freedom community.
They say, so science is a process of investigating claims, in other words, falsifying claims, and this is very important because if a claim can't be falsified, it's a belief.
Now, I have nothing wrong with beliefs.
I have no argument with people believe stuff.
If you believe the world was created in seven days, I don't know an experiment that will prove or disprove that.
It's fine, but don't call it science or logic, it's a belief.
So the belief this the claim here is that if you inject mRNA into a person or an animal, it will make them make a specific protein, in this case, a spike protein, and it will make them make it on the ribosomes.
That's what they say.
Now, it turns out that's wrong, and that is the big story here.
And I can tell you how I first of all they do that by saying by injecting people or animals with mRNA, and you would expect there would be studies then saying, Well, we injected 10 milligrams of mRNA, we got 10 milligrams of spike protein, etc.
And if we did one milligram, we get one milligram or some.
There's none of those studies, which is weird, like why not?
And then they use antibodies, and they claim that the antibodies are specific to the spike protein.
In other words, they find they say they have an antibody that binds only to the spike protein, and you would expect then there would be studies that you give a different mRNA and use the same antibody and it doesn't bind because it doesn't make spike protein, right?
That would tell you that it's specific.
Turns out there is never been that study.
So and then you would say, What about if you just poison somebody with uh with an M with something without mRNA, and then you put the antibody in, does it bind right?
Because maybe it's just it's a protein binding to something that's damaged.
They never did that study either.
So there is no evidence, actually, that mRNA shots modify your genetics at all.
There's no evidence that it makes you make spike protein at all.
The evidence is basically hearsay and propaganda.
Now, let's let's do one more thing here.
They say that this happens on the ribosomes, right?
Which are the part in the cytoplasm where the mRNA is made into protein.
Now, so I asked the question has anybody ever seen a picture of a ribosome, right?
Turns out no, except with electron microscopes, which means they take cells and they grind them up in a blender, and then they freeze it to minus 150 degrees, and then they dehydrate it, and then they stain it with heavy metals, and then they embed it in resin, and then every picture of a ribosome, every picture is a perfect circle.
Now, if it was a perfect circle on a picture, that means it was a sphere in real life, right?
What are the chances if you took a sphere like an orange, ground it up in a blender, dehydrated it, stained it with heavy metals, embedded it into a resin, that every picture, every picture of it would be a perfect sphere.
It doesn't sound plausible.
It's the answer is it's zero chance, right?
Which means ribosomes are artifacts, they're not actually there, and a guy named Harold Hillman proved that because he took tissue that couldn't possibly have ribosomes, and he got the exact same picture.
Which means there's no place for this mRNA to be made into protein, and by the way, they say that the each one gene makes one mRNA makes one protein.
That's what they say, it's all specific.
Then they claim there's 100,000 or more uh proteins, 10 to 20,000 genes, which means geneticists are not good at arithmetic because there's 80 to 90,000 at least missing uh genes for the coding for those proteins.
The whole thing is nonsense.
So just let me just do the building blocks for a minute.
So you're dealing with a theoretical sequence because you can't distill it from humans, and the sequence was billed from a computer model, right?
The sequence was made by taking a cell culture or directly from somebody's fluid, then extracting what they call the MR the RNA out of that, and then they chopped it up into pieces, and they had 56 million pieces in the case of SARS-CoV-2.
Then it's these are like words, right?
Little pieces, and then they say to the computer, arrange these in a in a by overlapping, right, into a coherent whole.
It's like if I gave you 56 million words and I said, Bill, make the book War and Peace.
But I but you've never seen war and peace.
Nobody has ever seen war and peace, but arrange the words so that they make war and peace.
You would say, I can't do that unless I saw the book first, right?
Right, but they say, okay, so the computer gives them 1.2 million different options.
These are the 1.2 million different ways you can arrange those little sequences into a long string, and so they say, okay, which is the right one, they chose the longest one.
Why?
Because it was a 90% similar to the previous coronavirus that was made exactly the same way.
Now, here's what's really interesting, and what most people don't know about this.
They then uh the final um genome actually had a sequence that was published from HIV.
That's the so-called lab insertion, right?
So you get this long string that was made with chosen arbitrarily, never came from anything, right?
Just a computer set, you got these million possibilities, choose one, chose one.
That was the genome, and then there was a HIV segment in there.
Now, how did it get in there?
They and so here's where it's really interesting.
You could say we ran those 56 million pieces again, and you can't get that HIV sequence in there.
So, in other words, they put it in deliberately after the genome was made to convince people that it was from a lab engineered virus, so that there would be a lab leak story.
And any virologist looking at that would say, wait a minute, you can't get that sequence from that data, but nobody ran the data again except us.
We ran it again, said you can't get that sequence.
They put it in manually after, so that there would be a story that everybody would catch.
It's like it's like uh it's like fingering an assassin, right?
Who didn't do it?
Uh, so that then Kennedy and Mercola and all these people would say, Look, we caught them red handed engineering this virus.
It was a total fabrication.
There was no virus, there was no lab leak, there was no engineered virus, Rand Paul, all these people, uh, you know, Dell Big Tree, they go with this story, and yet none of them ever said, wait a minute, we're gonna run the numbers again and see if you can get this sequence because you can't.
We're the only ones who did that.
Shut up for a while here.
The well, the reality of what you've just given us is um beyond amazing because again, you know, you you've um infected the world with these um poisons with these injections, using faulty PCR testing as your vehicle to say you have a thing, which is when you talk about all the ways that they can't do something, right?
And then you're talking about some simple swab that can do something, then all these ways can't do it.
Um, that's a complete fabrication, right?
You know, my strategy is so let's say let's get to the basics, right?
It's all about so a PCR is a part of the genome, allegedly, right?
So I can ask you or anybody listening the question can you prove that a piece of something came from something if you've never isolated the something first?
Right.
Let me give you an example.
If I go in my woods and I find a toenail, and I say, that's from a flying unicorn.
Everybody listening, I think, would say to me, how do you know?
Did you did you do you have a flying unicorn first so that you could see that the toenail came could have only come from that unicorn, right?
That's how you would do it.
First of all, you have to prove that the unicorn exists, has a toenail, and this toenail came from the unicorn, and no other animal has the same toenail, right?
That's called logic.
Now, in order to do a PCR test, you have to prove that you have a virus that has a genome that's unique, and this segment that you're testing for came from that has never been done.
Then you have to prove that no other animal or plant has that genome.
In fact, with all of the segments, the primers that are used in the COVID PCR test, there's at least 93 segments from the human genome that match.
In other words, it's not unique to anything.
They never proved it came from anything because they never had anything isolated to prove anything.
And they disproved it that it's unique to something that they didn't have by matching it to things that actually do exist.
That's scientific fraud.
Yeah.
You know, the truth of this is like radioactive truth.
It is so powerful yet so basic.
It's so basic.
So basic when you actually break it down as opposed to running with these um narratives that fit something that's contrived isn't based in in any kind of real scientific postulates, right?
Cock postulates.
Um you know, maybe you can just touch on that for a minute.
I mean, so it this goes back to the late 1800s, they were thinking of rules to that would show that a organ a microorganism causes a disease, and interestingly, the rules made sense, and again, think about it from a how do you know if hammers knock in nails?
A you you take it, you isolate the hammer first.
So, number one rule, you isolate the bacteria from the sick people, right?
Just like you isolate the hammer, and then you expose this well people to this isolated bacteria, right?
Just like you hit the nail with the hammer, and then it shouldn't be the case that you find that same bacteria in well people, just like if the nail goes in without hitting it with a hammer, that makes you think maybe there's some other reason nails go in the wall, right?
And it shouldn't, you shouldn't have polio viruses or anthrax in people walking around perfectly healthy, and so those are essentially Cox postulates.
I mean it's a little more complicated than that, because you isolate the thing from sick person, should only be in the sick person, not the well people.
You expose that in the natural way, like spraying it on them, etc.
Uh, and see if they get sick, and then you find the bacteria, the same bacteria in the sick people, right?
That's that's logic.
There's never been one case where those postulates were fulfilled, not one in the history of medicine, 150 years of research, trillions of dollars attempting to prove those postulates apply to illness in humans or animals, never once succeeded.
In fact, the just the whole thing of do sick people make well people sick, do sick animals make well animals sick.
I have approximately 250 studies in the medical literature where they disproved that.
They took children with chicken pox, put them in a room with children who were well, everything else was controlled, nobody got sick.
They did it with 1918 Spanish flu, they bribed prisoners, about a hundred of them who had the flu.
They got a hundred or so people who did who never had the flu, and they coughed in their mouth, they squirted snot up their nose, they breathed into their open mouth for five minutes, and in the conclusion of the paper, not one person got sick.
And here's the problem with medicine and science, it's not science.
So they disproved contagion.
So, what do they do?
They could have thrown the whole thing out.
Instead, they say, no, that's because the people who didn't get sick because they were immune to it, right?
Yeah, we have an immune system, right?
And it's based on antibodies, yeah.
And the immune system is powerful in ways that we sort of understand in ways that we don't understand.
No, there's no immune system.
Yeah, I mean, it's like you know, there's so many variables to that.
Um, maybe you could touch on terrain and what and what that means here.
What is the terrain piece of this?
I mean, I don't like to use the word Terrain because everybody believes in terrain, meaning, you know how you're doing the situation of your organism affects whether you get sick, right?
So everybody says, I like I won't mention names, but they say, Yeah, I believe in the germ in terrain theory and germ theory.
Well, that you can't that you that those are mutually exclusive.
Right.
Terrain theory means no, the reason you got sick is not some invasion of uh from a microbe that has been disproven, but in fact, sickness itself is your therapeutic response to some injury.
Now, let me just make that very clear to people, because everybody agrees with this if they think about it.
Like if you get a splinter in your finger and you don't take it out, what happens is you get pus, right?
And what happens with the pus, it knocks the splinter out, and then you're better.
You don't have an infection in your finger, you have the body's choice to get the splinter out using inflammation, right?
That's what's happening.
So let's say you breathe debris into your lungs, like chemtrails and smoke and cigarette ashes and all the rest of it.
Heavy metals, heavy metals.
What happens next?
You make mucus and cough to get rid of the debris.
That's and that you go to the doctor, he says you have bronchitis.
You don't have bronchitis, you have a therapeutic response to get rid of debris.
But because the doctors are scientifically illiterate, they think you have a disease and they stop you from coughing.
And so then you do that twice once a year for 20 years, and then you get a bag of debris in your lung, and we call that lung cancer.
That's not lung cancer.
I mean, maybe you could call it lung cancer, but what you have is the thwarted attempt by your body to heal, so it does the next best thing, which is to encapsulate it and keep it out of the general circulation.
Every single thing that we call symptoms are the body's attempt to heal, no exceptions.
That is the real message here, and they've perverted that and said, No, that it's all just you know, bad luck, bad genes, microbes getting you, there's no meaning in this, it's just you know, you're just sick, get over it.
It's crazy.
Well, so the body's attempt to heal is a critical factor because that's the expression of the symptoms that we see, but then the system wants to label it because the system needs to find a drug for it, system needs to get paid for it, needs to find an SD10 for it.
Um, yet it doesn't even really understand what it is the way it approaches it, right?
Exactly.
And you know, there I often ask the question to myself when I was doing medicine and to the my patients, what would you do if you were this body?
Like if you had debris in your joints, right?
You took, you know, you took too much calcium and synthetic vitamin D and you made a calcium deposit in your joint, and you never moved much, etc.
What would you do?
Well, I would make redness and heat to try to dissolve the calcium so that I could mobilize it and then recreate a healthier knee, right?
That's what I would do.
We call that arthritis, and we give people drugs to stop them from doing that, and then they build up more and more debris in their joints, and then we say you have a bad knee, you have to have a joint replacement.
That's called medicine these days, and that uh that so-called arthritis, the warmth, the redness, the swelling was the way to immobilize it and to re flush it out so that you would get better.
So if you want to do real medicine, you help the body do that.
Well, first of all, you don't put stuff in that you need to deposit in your joints.
And second of all, you might put like a castor oil pack or something that helps get rid of the debris in your joints.
That's called medicine.
So we've talked about these foundational elements that this entire industry is built on.
Again, back to a house of cards.
And then the treatment that was um implemented across the world, we're really seeing now kind of the slash and burn effect of people dealing with you know stuff that's not self, right?
It's not you.
The body is trying to deal with it, you know, etc.
And we have all of these sort of cottage industries kicking in to deal with you know with the body's effect of trying to get rid of something that shouldn't be there, synthetic spike protein and other right.
There's no spike protein.
Okay, so that's what that's what's talked about all day long.
So all day long.
How about it?
Again, if you say there's a spike pro they the spike protein was it, there's never been an assay directly from the serum of a spike protein.
All they do is they take an antibody and they claim that this antibody is specific for a spike protein.
Now, you would think that at some point they would do studies showing let's put this antibody with different proteins and see if it binds.
They don't do, they don't publish that.
Let's just make poison you and make inflammatory inflammatory debris and give you the same protein uh antibody and see if it binds.
That would be another way to see whether it's specific to the spike protein.
They never did that.
In other words, they don't do science, they it's propaganda say again, saying the mRNA made you make spike protein.
It didn't.
All it did was poison you and made you break down, and then you could uh claim that it's this genetic thing works, and that you can give people nato kinase or rather to get rid of their spike protein and nicotine patches and get rid of their spike protein.
And so you get two narratives going here, right?
The bad guys and the good guys, and they're both totally misguided, anti-scientific nonsense.
And all you have to do is do basic science.
Okay, show me the study where they made inflammatory debris, but no spike protein.
Give me the same antibody, see if it binds.
They never did that.
In fact, a guy, the world's expert on antibodies, guy named Clifford Saper at Harvard, has categorically said there is no such thing as antibody specificity, and he's the editor of a neurology journal.
They will not accept papers that are based on antibody specificity, and all the spike protein and all modern histology is based on antibody studies and specificity, and none of them have those controls that I just mentioned, none of them.
So you've just pulled the rug out of the the two factions, right?
You get the medical faction that it you know can contrives this whole narrative to inject the world, etc.
And then you've got this southern narrative trying to fight it with you know natural approaches and ways to deal with this theoretical pathogen that isn't really there.
So, where do you go from here with this?
Where do you think you go from here realistically?
I know you need to go back to the basics and actually think about how you would, you know, the do the basics and test for things for real, but now that we have people with symptomatology, dealing with you know, uh rubbery clots and all of these other kinds of things that have appeared, right?
Following these these injections, where do we go with that?
Well, let me just be clear.
I didn't just say that people don't get sick, right?
Right, Nor did I say those injections or any vaccine is not harmful and pure poison, right?
Nor did I say that uh injecting people with poison might not make them have uh heart damage or clots or die or any other number of things.
I didn't say any of those things.
I just said the mechanism that they're saying is not true.
Yeah, all they're doing is poisoning you, basically.
Any vaccine, any vaccine, there is no way any vaccine can be helpful.
Any vaccine, there's no benefit, only risk, any vaccine, childhood, adult, anything, because the theory isn't right, yeah.
And you know, so what do you do?
You first of all, people have to understand that we made a dramatic wrong turn in science, and it's hard to say exactly when, but somewhere around 150 years ago,
we used to think that this is sort of interesting in a way, that the first human was Adam, A D A M. And living beings,
including people, were created by God or some sort of energetic principle in the world, and that living beings had a purpose and were basically energy beings that somehow became manifest in a physical form, right?
And so when people got sick, it was because they weren't uh they weren't living in harmony with their nature or with nature around them, or with their ancestors, or with their purpose in life, or things like that, right?
Then 1850, in an interesting mockery and play on words, they said, no, it's not atom a d a M. We're made from atoms, A T O M. And so all this stuff with purpose and energy flow and the energy like acupuncture and chiropractic, the energy flow through your spine and through your organs, and all that's nonsense.
We're basically purposeless billiard balls, and they knock together, and when they billiard balls knock together, they form a chemical, and then those chemicals knock together, it's all random, there's no direction, there's no creator, there's no purpose, there's no nothing.
Then they form a little bit bigger chemicals, and then proteins by random knocking together, and then frogs and then giraffes and then gorillas, and then Uncle Harry.
It all came, there's no reason it took billions of years, all just knocking billiard balls, and then some of them became viruses and some of them became bacteria, and they're out to get you because it's all survival of the fittest, and even though they kill you, which doesn't seem like it would be a good thing if they need you to survive, never mind that.
And none of the it's all materialistic reductionistic hogwash, but that is the world that science created.
Nothing means anything.
Your your brains create your thoughts somehow.
You didn't think anything, you don't have any purpose, you don't there's there's no meaning to this illness, there's nothing to learn here, it's just random collision of billiard balls.
You know, to one of your points um regarding the introduction of poisons.
I mean, we can just take a look at the data of childhood um diseases as they quote say them that didn't exist, named things of symptoms that didn't exist before vaccination, and then after vaccination over decades, you can see the more you add the poisons, the more conditions you tend to get.
Now, are we isolating that necessarily?
Not necessarily, but you can say one is driving the other on some level, right?
Yeah, and also the the more sophisticated we get in suppressing people's attempt to heal, the more chronically people will get sick.
Yeah.
Like the way to get somebody to have asthma is when they get bronchitis.
You know, I remember in medical school.
So I have this child in my clinic, so I was his sort of primary doctor.
Horrible asthma.
He took inhalers, everything every day.
And so then he comes into the hospital, 104 fever, pneumonia, white out on his lung.
And I I came in, I listened to him.
He wasn't wheezing first time ever.
And I said to the attending pediatrician, hey, how come he's like healed of his asthma with he's got this pneumonia?
What's what's the deal here?
And he says, Oh, yeah, we know about this.
The pneumonia heals the asthma.
So I said, What are we gonna do?
Well, we give him antibiotics and we cure the asthma, and we did that, and then he got his asthma back.
Nice.
Whereas it's clearly in the medical literature that a child with asthma, which means like hardening of their lungs, when they when they go through that pneumonia warming mucus, get rid of stuff, it actually heals their asthma.
But we we won't let that happen because we don't understand thinking science, rational logic, nothing.
We just have this theory, sit see symptoms, get it, you know, get rid of it.
We've just pretty much blown up the entire medical foundation for almost being in so many ways.
Um you practiced it for you know four decades, which is probably why you have the perspectives that you do, because you've seen it from the bottom to the top.
Um, you know, and I think we've just really opened the door on the subject.
I mean, really just talked about this foundational thing because if you can't get that straight, you can't seem to go anywhere from there because everything else is built on this this house of cards and lies.
Um we're gonna go to QA here shortly, but you know, if you were going to summarize, you know, where we need to go from here, because it's so captured.
Um, it's almost like we need to throw most of it out, um, all of it out and come back to how natural beings actually really function, but to then go back to how do we begin to either assist or get out of the way of the body as it heals itself, right?
I mean, my answer is talking to people, right?
So people like you uh graciously say, why don't you come and talk to us?
So I do.
And the other thing is we made a new biology online clinic where I collected, you know, doctors and other health people who think like this, and we try to work out how it works, because we've all been indoctrinated.
And interestingly, these are doctors, one was trained as an anesthesiologist, pain doctor, one is a plastic surgeon, one was a family doctor, one is a traditional osteopath, one is a sports medicine person, one is a psychiatrist.
So these are you know, board certified, qu highly qualified doctors who say this isn't right, and now none of us, including me, none of us know how it works, really.
People used to know, but we know there's some basics.
We know how you think and your the emotional quality of your life.
We know that what you eat and what you put into your body and the water that you drink and whether you move and whether you're in the sun and whether you're grounded to the earth, and on and on and on.
We know those things make a difference, and we've also found some interventions like I talked about the castor oil packs or using turpentine steam to help get the mucus out, right?
Once you see that the body is trying to get the mucus out, maybe it needs some help.
Then you can put some turpentine steam and helps get the mucus out.
And then they're all better.
And then their asthma is gone and doesn't come back.
And that's that's what we're trying to do at the new biology clinic.
And can people access that information yet or not?
Yeah, it's been going for a couple of years, and you know, people become members.
It's the new biology clinic.com, and they become members and they if they have a problem, or even if they don't, they talk to one of us, and not me.
I'm I'm too I'm too gone to do you know, like patient interaction or member interaction.
I I'm not doing that anymore.
Well, I think you know they're better at it than I am, but I think that your ability to kind of capture this space and break it down because it shouldn't be the way it's it's narrated, and come back to the basics is um sorely lacking.
I mean, I tell you, I've talked to many, many practitioners, had many on the show, and trying to push in this direction, it's hard to get anything even close to what might appear to be the truth.
So, you know, it's uh it's amazing to have you just go back to the basics and you know, start where these definitions and terms came from and their lack of uh efficacy or or or not really capable of deriving all of what's come forward following it,
because you know, you have these major industries built on these tiny little pieces that are you know 1200 75 years old or older, back to the 1800s, you know, it's not based in like the science is sort of kept up and is working like you guys are working to actually work with the body and how things really work.
So um it's more questions in time to probably answer, but I want to bring on um uh that's why Bill, I I often say, you know, it gets it confuses people when they think about virology, but think about hammers.
If somebody told you that I know there's a hammer knocks in nails, and the way I prove that is I took a toolbox, never found a hammer in a toolbox ever, and hit the nail with the toolbox, you would say they're nutcase, right?
And but that's exactly that the virologists admit you cannot find directly in any biological fluid a virus, you have to culture it.
In other words, you have to hit it with the toolbox, and when you say, Well, how do you know it isn't just the toolbox that did it?
Because that's what you would ask normally, right?
That's what they have no answer.
And going back to that information, I mean, didn't they they the they determined that with or without the the substance, they couldn't differentiate, right?
Between the that's what he said in the original paper that started this, yeah.
It's indistinguishable whether we put something with measles or not, and then this was repeated about six times uh subsequent to that, and then it nobody did it anymore, and then we did it, and it interestingly, I know you know virology research.
Let me take a guess, last 50 years, a trillion dollars.
We disproved it with 25,000.
We got a lab, we did the cell culture, we didn't add anything from anybody with measles, it broke down proving there was a measles virus, there couldn't possibly be because there was no contact with anything from we even sequenced it and got the sequence, showed pictures of it, but there was no measles anything in there, yeah.
Disproven, yeah, and yet it costs 25,000, which is a lot, but not a trillion.
So Melissa, you've been watching this uh, you know, amazing conversation, which is um fundamental to everything that we see out there in terms of a need to understand this carefully and not just call go off running like I see all these different factions doing running with this idea and that idea, coming back to the fact that foundationally none of it really um fits, but what questions have surfaced for you while you watched watched um Tom?
So when you talked about the bodies like therapeutic response um to to being sick and things like that, but it's not being effective at healing the issue that's going on with the body, so then there's antibiotics that are prescribed that do resolve the issue.
How do you think um that correlates?
And so it's you know, often it's good to think about um like uh analogy with nature, right?
So you get you cut down some trees or bushes, you leave them sit there, and the bacteria come to digest the tree or the bushes and turn it into compost humus, so it recycles, right?
That's how it works.
So if you have dead and dying tissue, right?
Because you know, I used to see this.
They they you'd have a 10-year-old uh child and they put braces in, so you put heavy metals in their mouth, and then three weeks later they have tonsillitis, and they say it's from strep.
So what happened is you put this electromagnetic frequency uh poison in their mouth, and it caused the tonsils to start breaking down and dying.
So then nature, like the forest, generates these bacteria, which are always there, but actually organizes them to go and break down the tonsils so it can re mold it and have make better tonsils, and while that happens, you feel pain and redness and a little bit sick.
So then some bozo comes along and says, Yeah, it's the strep that caused the problem.
So they kill the strep, and that stops the remodeling process, and you think you're better, but what you have now is just dead tonsil tissue in your mouth.
Now, the reason I started thinking that is because I would see this from other doctors, and I would say, this person is gonna go through this again and again and again, and that's who came to me.
I've had 12 bouts of tonsillitis with strep, and every time it goes away and then it gets worse and comes back, which is exactly what you would predict from the from what I said, and then I started looking in the literature and thought A,
not everybody with tonsillitis has strep, B about 40 to 60 percent of the people who have nothing have strep in their throat, they're called they're called carriers, and I look for a single study in the medical literature where they took strep, which exists, right?
Now we're not talking about viruses, we're talking about bacteria, sprayed those on healthy people and made them sick, right?
That's how you would do it.
This isn't rocket science.
This is if you want to know if a hammer knocks in a nail, you hit the nail with the hammer.
You want to know whether strep makes people sick, you spray them with strep.
There is not one study in the medical literature that shows that, and by the way, if anybody wants to criticize me or comment that guy's an idiot, I'm not interested.
I'm interested in you showing me the study that isolated strep makes people sick.
That's all I care about here.
Yes, well, so how do you think?
Because, like, for example, sometimes, for example, I'm not feeling well, I'm feeling sick.
I hung out with my niece over the weekend and she got sick yesterday.
How do I so most people look at that and they go, Oh, I got sick from them being sick because they coughed on me, breathed it in, whatever.
How does that work if like viruses aren't just out there spreading when people breathe and cough?
Right.
So let's break this down a little bit.
And I often ask people, what do you actually see?
So, did you see a virus?
No, no, so the virus is a theory part, right?
What you saw, and again, I don't want to put words in your mouth.
So if you disagree, don't don't agree with me.
You saw two or more people, there's two people who got the same symptoms at the same time in the same place.
Is that right?
Just me, it's Her and then me.
Yeah, two people, same symptoms, same time, same place.
Yeah, yeah.
Could be more, but in this case, there was two.
So the question then is if two or more people, right?
We have two people, same symptoms, same time, same place.
Uh, does that prove transmission?
In other words, one person made the other sick.
Not necessarily, because then more people could be sick since we're around more people.
Well, or how about this?
You put a hundred rats in the basement and you put rat poison, and then all hundred rats die of bleeding.
And so, same time, same place, same symptoms.
Does that mean that they were had a transmissible event?
No, no, they were poisoned by rat poison.
Right.
In other words, you can't tell whether there was a transmission event or not.
All you know is two people got sick at the same time.
We could both just be tired because I'm very sleep deprived.
You don't know why it could be transmission, but if you don't know, you have to do proper science, which is easy.
Take people who have the flu or cold or chicken pox or measles, you put them in a room with people who don't, and see if they get sick, and then you put controls, etc.
All we know, and what I know, and the 20 of my friends who've looked into this, is there's not one study that proves that's the case, and hundreds that prove it's not the case.
If you don't believe me, read a book called Can You Catch a Cold by Daniel Reutis.
Now, having said that, you still have this observation that it seems like when I'm around somebody, I get sick.
Now, I certainly think that living beings transmit all kinds of information between themselves, right?
We do with animals, animals do, plants do, humans do, and so in an uncontrolled situation, like between family or friends or so, you could imagine there's some communication of Melissa.
You're not uh there's something wrong.
You should go through a kind of a cleansing process, and you do, and somehow your friend in your best interest communicated that to you through how I mean I don't know, but some energetic we're all we're energy electrical beings.
There's some signal, just like women men straight at the same time.
We're we're communicating all the time, and that, but when you go to study it scientifically, there's no contagion again.
If you disagree, anybody out there, I don't want your Aunt Bessie story, I want a proper controlled study, because I can guarantee it doesn't exist.
So get on this show and make a fool of myself if it did.
A comment, Tom.
So back to the reason that you look at these other natural pathways and potential things that can be going on because there's the appearance of a connection, right?
Yeah, is because the one that people think of has been disproved.
Disproven.
Okay.
I have no problem with people thinking, I wonder if somebody passed something.
Yeah, and and there's an easy way to do it.
You just put people in a room, and they did that hundreds of times.
They they had the the most contagious quote illness ever, 1918 flu.
They they took snot from their nose and squirted it up into the nose of people who never had the flu.
Hundreds of they bribed them.
They said, You do let us do this, we'll let you out of prison.
And they said not one got sick.
That's what they said.
So let's mask the world with a worthless mask, scare them to death, keep them off planes, and you know, the rest of its history, right?
And when you wear a mask, you can't breathe properly, and you inhale these plastic fibers that you then have to cough up out of your lungs, and then you think it's contagious.
There you go.
You have another question, Melissa.
Oh, I could ask all day.
So um, how much time do we have?
One final question.
Okay, one final question.
If you had to recommend one book, um, one of yours and one of someone else's that someone's just starting out on this journey, which ones would you recommend?
Uh it a little bit depends whether somebody is capable of reading science.
So let's assume they're an average lay person like myself.
Uh, I would read a farewell to virology by Mark Bailey.
And I wrote a booklet called Breaking the Spell, which is not on Amazon, it's only on our Dr. TomCowan.com website.
Mark, it was written for people who want to really understand the science and the logic.
Mine is written for anybody who can read.
Great.
Okay, perfect.
Well, uh man, I could go on and on about this.
We might have to have you on again to ask more questions because this is just such a controversial topic.
I was taught in my high school um the difference that it was a theory.
Um, virology was a theory, and then my sisters who are five and eight years younger than me never did that.
They only taught the virology virus stuff.
They never taught the terrain theory, germ theory, um, virology, all that.
So they're taking it out of let me because let me just finish with one thing.
What you're looking for is basically nonsense.
So let me give you an example of one of the this got really got me started in this, and it goes all the way back to 1984.
And again, you both can tell me whether you have heard this or not.
We have heard that the reason you make antibodies is if you make antibodies, you're protected against the virus, right?
You've heard that.
Yeah, in other words, you get you know, the flu virus, you get chicken pox, then you get uh antibodies, and you're immune for life, right?
That's me.
Change your body to recognize it how to buy the antibodies recognize the virus, you're immune for life.
So you get measles, that's a virus.
You make antibodies immune for life.
You get chicken pox, you get antibodies, then you're immune for life, except maybe you get shingles again, so it maybe doesn't last your whole life, and then you get the cold, and that's a virus, and then you get antibodies, and that only lasts a year because the cold knows how to change.
And then 1984, I still remember this.
I'm walking down the street and I see on the television Robert Gallo, 1984.
He announces we found the cause of AIDS, it's HIV.
How does he know?
Because some of the people with AIDS have antibodies to HIV, which means the virus is gonna kill them.
And I thought, excuse my French here.
What the fuck?
Wait a minute.
I spent four years, that's when I graduated medical learning that antibodies protect me from the virus, and this clown just gets on the horn and says, if you have antibodies, that means the virus is gonna kill you.
And I thought there's something really wrong, right?
And that's what I mean.
When you everybody needs to learn how to say, hey, wait a minute.
This is well, I feel like we're we're they did during COVID that if you questioned anything, any common sense, you were bullied, but nobody wants to be the bullied one, right?
And so everybody just gangs up on the people, and that's why people like even doubt common sense, they'll doubt their common sense.
You can't at the same time tell me if you have antibodies, you're good, and antibodies means you're gonna die.
Like that's somebody has to explain, right?
And they never did.
And Fauci was behind some of that too, wasn't he?
Fauci was part of that too, yeah.
So, you know, The whole subject is because of the I think the gravity of the situation is radioactive for most people to come to grips with it.
They haven't really done the background or cared to do it.
And they just kind of through by are led around with all of these concepts and ideas that really aren't rooted in even the old science, let alone any real new science.
So I think we've just scratched the surface, Tom.
We're gonna have to do another show.
Okay.
Thanks, guys.
We're coming to the end of In the Lion's Den.
I want to thank everybody for for showing up.
And um, Tom, thank you very much for bringing your insights and your work over you know many decades.
It's refreshing to see somebody who's just not worried about telling the truth, or what they see is the the best, you know, uh explanation for what isn't the truth, and um, you know, where do we go from here?
So, again, great having you on the show.
I look forward to maybe getting you on again, and we'll carry on and and explore more of these myths.
Great.
Time to go, no time to defund us.
No, that we're not perfect, we're humor flow.
Just say some grace for the sake of nothing.
That's what we do.
▲
Export Selection