All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2022 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
01:01:09
Drs. Thomas Cowan and Andrew Kaufman interviewed by Mike Adams: Why the "virus" pandemic is a FARCE
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In these genetic vaccine products, we're not sure if the spike protein is actually made because it's not in the vaccine, right?
The vaccine has the genetic code for this protein.
But because they wanted to avoid doing any studies related to shedding, which are required for gene therapies, they had this thing classified as a vaccine so they could bypass that spike.
So they've never actually studied, is the spike protein actually made in someone who gets these injections?
Welcome to Brighton Conversations.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of brighteon.com and now the new brighteon.tv broadcast platform.
And today, I got to tell you, I am super thrilled to have these two guests on because these two brilliant men have changed my thinking about so many things.
And right up front, I'll tell you who they are, and I got to offer them both an apology because I thought they were wrong for quite a while.
Now I found out they're right, and it's going to blow your mind as you discover that for yourself.
It's Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
And as I said, they're going to join me here in just a second.
I thought they were wrong because they were saying, you know, you've heard this, that the COVID-19 virus has never been isolated from a symptomatic person.
You know, isolated, shown then to infect another person and reproduce the symptoms of the original diagnosis of the original source.
And when I first heard that, you know, as a lab scientist myself, I thought, surely they must be wrong.
Surely there must be certified reference materials of this, like a dried powder of SARS-CoV-2 virus that I can order as a lab owner, that I can order and get a certified reference material, and I can conduct studies on it.
So I tried to order certified reference materials.
And this is when the awakening began for me.
And I came to discover that so much of the field of virology is a mishmash of crazy woo goo.
And they're selling basically snot stew samples to people and calling them isolates.
And...
I had this huge awakening, so I had to get these two guys on to explain what's going on here and why COVID hasn't been, quote, isolated and what that actually means.
So, Dr.
Thomas Cowan, Dr.
Andrew Kaufman, thank you for joining me today.
Thanks, Mike.
Great to be here.
I've been watching so many of your videos over the last few weeks and getting an incredible education.
But let's start at the beginning here.
And if I could pose this question, Dr. Kaufman.
Oh, and by the way, we'll give out your websites here on screen for people to check out your work.
It's andrewkauffmanmd.com and drtomcowin.com.
But Dr. Kaufman, could you explain to people, just for starters, what do you mean when you say that we don't have an isolated SARS-CoV-2, a novel coronavirus that has been isolated and proven to cause this so-called disease?
What does that mean?
Well, essentially, Mike, we have a situation here.
If we're going to demonstrate that we've discovered a new organism, like they would say that a virus would be, then we have to show that we can find that alleged organism in nature.
And, you know, so that we can study it, we take a specimen of it and look at it in the laboratory, you know, like you do on a daily basis, and then we can dissect it and see what it's made of and take out the genetic material and sequence that if there is any.
I just assumed that that would be how they discover viruses, but what has happened is that since the 1950s, they have this procedure that they call isolation, but it's actually a complete inversion of the meaning of that word.
And what they do is they have the possible or the putative source of an alleged virus or a possible virus in nature that they might have a theory as causing a disease.
But they can't actually find it.
So what they do is they take the disease tissue from whatever organism and they mix it in a foreign cell culture, often using the cells of monkeys.
But they do some further things to make this cell culture not grow well.
They're not nice to it.
They add poisonous chemicals and they remove critical nutrients and create what I call a starvation diet.
And then when they show there's damage to those cells in the culture, they say that that's evidence of a virus.
And then they show electron microscope pictures of particles.
But as we've seen, even the scientists in that field knew about this problem for a long time, that these particles they see are just what happens when cells break down in the process of dying.
And they can't be distinguished from each other in any way, you know, based on appearance, because they've never been actually shown to exist separately in nature.
And they've never been, you know, purified in any form that could be used for further study, like as a reference material that you mentioned.
And, you know, they do have what they might call reference material available, but what it is is that they just take the fluid from the cell culture And filter it and put it in a vial.
And interestingly, and I think this is actually the purpose of why they use this experiment, that's the same exact procedure to manufacture a vaccine.
Because that same, very same fluid from that cell culture is essentially the vaccine material, minus the adjuvants.
But importantly, what's in that vial is not purified, is not limited to just whatever genetic sequence strain that they claim is in there.
You know, when I buy a standard for my lab of, let's say, glyphosate herbicide, it's only glyphosate in water.
Right?
And it's just glyphosate molecules in water.
There's nothing else in it.
You know, very, very high purity.
And it even gives me a concentration.
You know, it tells me how many micrograms per milliliter of glyphosate is in there so I can do serial dilutions and I can make standards and I can teach the instrument what it's looking at.
What I've seen with these virology samples is not only are there no concentrations listed, no masses given of what's in there, but then the disclaimers say, oh, and probably most of the genetic material in the vial is human cells and bovine cells.
So I'm thinking, well, how is this unisolate?
It is really laughable when you look at it in scientific terms, because as you know, you can take that glyphosate standard and run an HPLC on it and see a pristine symmetric peak.
Yes.
Whereas if you took this sample that we're talking about from a cell culture and looked at it under the microscope, you would see a mixture of particles.
And if you ran it on a gel electrophoresis, you'd see a mixture of proteins.
And you'd see a mixture of genetic molecules, right?
DNA and RNA. So it would not be one thing.
It's a mixture of things.
And that, of course, defies the meaning of the word isolation or isolate.
Right.
And just to mention, electrophoresis, just to explain this to the readers, so that separates these particle masses by their mass-to-charge ratios, basically, right?
So that spreads out on a gel, physically spreads out particles essentially based on their mass.
Is that correct?
Absolutely.
Yes.
Yeah, it's a way to demonstrate, you know, what's in a sample in terms of a certain type of biomolecule like proteins or RNA or DNA can all be separated so that if you have, for example, you know, different genes represented, they would be separated and show up as separate pieces of RNA material or if you had a mixture of proteins, the same thing.
So, thank you for that explanation.
You're very clear about how you're explaining things.
I want to ask you about Koch's postulates here next, but next question is to Dr.
Cowan.
So, what really shocked me about all of this is that once we understand that they don't have an isolated virus for COVID, It also turns out they can't prove that they have isolated viruses that are proven to cause polio or measles or other things.
Can you give us your thoughts on the field of virology and this entire postulate that these viruses are causing these conditions alone?
Yeah, Mike, I also just want to point out that your example of glyphosate is appropriate because glyphosate is smaller than a virus.
It is.
So it isn't a technical problem to have pure glyphosate or pure something smaller than a virus.
It's common laboratory stuff.
So that's not the problem.
The way I would answer your question is, you know, this question I keep asking people, how do you know there's a virus and it causes disease?
And most people in response to that, including, unfortunately, a lot of medical doctors say, well, a lot of people in a certain place got sick, so it must be a virus.
Or that a lot of people got sick and then it spread to the next place and that means it's a virus.
Or my Aunt Bessie went to church and she got sick and that means it's a virus.
And the reality is those are epidemiological observations, none of which prove any causation.
That's not the role.
And besides, if you think because a lot of people get sick in the same place, that proves it's a virus, you must think Hiroshima was a virus.
If it spreads, then you must think Chernobyl was a virus.
And the reality is for hundreds of years, they thought, you know, one sailor got sick after another, their teeth fell out, they went into heart failure and died.
That must be a contagion.
Turns out it was scurvy and somebody ate a lime and the whole thing went away.
Exactly.
We have a long history of being wrong about this.
The next thing is, and here I'm going to say something that I think will hopefully shock your listeners who haven't heard this, because it shocked me, but if you say, okay, the next step is you take a sick person with measles,
AIDS, chicken pox, COVID, whatever that is, any so-called viral disease, and you ask the question, Is it possible to find a uniform, morphologically identical particle from any bodily fluid from that sick person?
The answer is, if you look in the medical literature, there is not one case that that's true.
Now, let me just tell you the people who agree with what I just said.
Number one, 95, as of yesterday, health institutions have been asked, can you show me a study where a SARS-CoV-2, that's the virus, has been found in any bodily fluid of anybody with COVID? In writing, they say no.
Then there's like the Pasteur Institute, the Robert Koch Institute, the CDC, all have said no.
All the virologists who write papers saying isolation of SARS-CoV-2, if you ask them in writing, they say no.
And here's another thing.
Andy and I had the opportunity to present what we're talking about today to a group of lawyers and activists and doctors, and they invited a guy who was introduced to us as a laboratory pathologist and expert in laboratory virology in Wuhan, Chinese CDC, for 20 years, and then a Yale pathologist for 20 years.
And we asked him, is it possible to see an isolated example of SARS-CoV-2 from any person with COVID? And he said no.
And we said, why?
He said, because there's not enough to see.
And of course, that begs the question of if there's not enough virus to see in an electron microscope, on what theory is it going to kill us all?
But hang on.
So Andy...
Trust me, it's invisible.
Yes.
Andy had the presence of mind to say, what about if you took 10 people and mixed them together, their bronchial fluid?
Would there then be enough virus to see?
And he said, no.
And Andy asked him, what about 100 people?
And he said no.
And he asked him, what about 1,000 people?
And he said, there's not enough to see.
And then we asked him, what about 10,000 people?
You mix all their fluid together, would there be enough to see?
And he said no.
And then he wouldn't answer anymore.
So the reality is, everybody who knows anything about virology agrees that you cannot find this uniform, identical, morphologically identical particle in the bodily fluid of any sick person.
Not with chickenpox, not measles, not mumps, not the flu, not HIV, not...
So the question is, why did they write 10,000 papers or so claiming isolation?
And that's exactly what Andy just described.
They take fluid, they mix it with bovine fetal serum and calf serum, monkey stuff.
They spread it on Vero cells, usually, or other types of cells.
They poison it, they starve it, it breaks down, and they call that isolation.
Even though we now have two separate experiments that say...
Because the original experiment that did this by a guy named Enders...
He actually did a control, and he did the whole tissue culture with nothing from anybody with measles, right?
And he said, in quote, the result was indistinguishable.
And when I read that, I thought, wait a minute, you just showed that the whole breakdown of the cell, which is what you're calling the virus, happens even if you don't add anything from anybody with measles.
Right.
So they can find the virus in anything when they're just killing cells.
They can find the, quote, virus.
Right.
So this is extraordinary.
And I really appreciate both of you taking the time to restate these things.
And I know you've talked about this hundreds of times.
It's just that it takes a lot of repetition for a lot of us to get this, even myself.
Okay.
Mike, whenever you have to shift paradigm like this, because we're really challenging germ theory here, it just takes a while to settle in.
It's a process.
But it can really help you look at all of the other scientific reporting that's going on if you realize that there actually is no virus to speak of.
And what you see is that time and time again, the way that they do these studies is through simulations of various types.
So they do actually virtual computer simulations for creating the genome sequence and for showing any potential benefit of masks, because when they study masks in the real world, they're not effective.
But they've gone as far as to actually make what they call pseudo viruses of variants because they don't actually have a real variant because it doesn't actually exist.
So what they do is they take a shell from another virus, empty it out and put synthetic genes in there that they create in a lab synthesizer.
And then they put that in a cell culture and mix it with, you know, antibodies that they say are this COVID antibody or that COVID antibody.
And that's how they get information about the variants.
It's extraordinary, and I think the phrase they use is in silico, which means it's a computer simulation.
I've got to relate to you that I sat down with Thermo Fisher sales representatives.
We were trying to purchase PCR equipment over a year ago for our food science lab.
Because we were trying to save time versus incubating salmonella samples and so on.
So they had promised, oh, you can do it in 12 hours instead of 72 hours by using PCR. So I said, great, come to our office, meet with us, show us how this works.
So they came...
And I had some questions for them, such as, you know, how do I tell the quantity?
What's the quantitation capability of this instrument?
And they said, oh, there is none.
It can't give you any quantity.
And I said, well, how do I know if food is contaminated properly?
To a certain threshold, or is it just the presence of one strain of genetic material?
I've got to throw this whole lot out because, you know, there are standards.
There are standards of European standards.
There's FDA standards.
You know, even salmonella, total plate count, yeast and mold.
There's a certain threshold.
You go beyond that, it's considered contaminated.
Below that, it's considered safe by the FDA. So you've got to have quantitation.
They can't provide that.
And then I said, well, how, you know, Where am I going to get the samples to run against?
And they said, no, you just download them.
And I said, what do you mean?
I'm downloading Salmonella now?
What are you talking about?
They said, no, it's just digital libraries, and then you can update them and just download them, and that's what it's looking for.
So you're absolutely right.
That's when I realized it's all a simulation.
But they tell you, you know, if you go to the original Christian Drosten paper where the PCR segments came from, the primers, now you have to understand there's two premises of a PCR test.
One, that you know that this primer, this sequence, Came from only that virus, right?
It's unique to that virus.
And then the second premise is no other organism has that sequence, right?
You know it came from that one, and no other organism has that.
And you look at it, and I've said this so many times, I have it memorized.
They said, this was a challenge for us to develop a robust test because we never had possession of the virus.
That's right.
I saw that in their documents.
Wait a minute.
You cannot say this thing, right?
We're talking about a thing.
We're not talking about a feeling or an emotional release or a thought or an idea.
We're talking about a thing.
You can't say this piece of a thing came from the whole thing unless you have the thing.
To that point...
...that there's 93 human sequences that have the same, you know, sequence.
91, I think the number was microbes.
So the whole thing is nonsense.
You're exactly right.
And I've been getting the confirmation from other sources as well.
I'm not going to say the name of the doctor, but a doctor that I've interviewed before was playing around with the BLAST software that you're both familiar with.
And they fed in one of these gene sequences of the Delta variant, I think it was.
And the BLAST software came back and said, that's Homo sapiens.
Yeah, right.
Right?
So, okay.
So they're testing to see if you're a human or something.
But the other thing is, I think the mainstream science says that this virus has, I think, 33,000 genes or something in that range.
Perhaps you can correct me on that.
But then the so-called PCR test is testing for how many base pairs?
You know, what, 50, 100?
And just like you said, Dr.
Cowan, how can that be unique to that so-called virus?
It isn't unique.
It is not unique.
And because if you don't have possession of the thing first, which they all admit they don't, then you can't say that this piece of it came from that thing.
That's how human beings think.
You can't say this paragraph came from this book unless you have the book first.
You can't say this piece of a unicorn came from a unicorn unless you've seen a unicorn.
I think the CDC has seen some unicorns recently.
They do.
Dr.
Kaufman, first, do you want to respond to any of that?
Or if not, I have another question for you.
Yeah, no, please go on.
Tom's doing a great job.
Absolutely.
All right, so there was a news item a few months ago where a mother had her children wear masks, and then she sent those masks to a lab, and she had the masks analyzed for the pathogens.
And the analysis reported all kinds of incredible crazy things, tuberculosis and measles and whatever.
I mean, it was like 20 things.
And it struck me, but these children don't have those diseases.
So what does that mean?
I mean, aside from the fact that the masks, perhaps they're collecting something, but the children aren't sick.
So if this particle causes that sickness, why aren't those children sick?
Yeah, well, that's a great point.
And, you know, what it really tells us is that the bacteria don't cause illnesses.
And bacteria, of course, are real things, and we can isolate them out of people.
So I don't want...
There's a big distinction between bacteria and viruses, but...
What we find is that bacteria actually play a similar role throughout nature as in our bodies, the so-called saprophytic function, that they reduce dying biological material into their constituent elements, sort of break them down and digest them.
And so what I think you're seeing with those experiments, and it was really interesting because they had, I think, like Neisseria meningitidis, right?
And you mentioned Mycobacterium, these things that cause, you know, supposedly meningitis and tuberculosis, that...
When you exhale, that's the way your body is getting rid of toxins.
Actually, just this carbon dioxide itself is the acid in your blood.
So if you can't get off enough CO2, you have an acidic blood environment, which, as we know, is conducive to illness and will cause a lot of problems.
But there's also many other things that come out, you know, essentially any volatile compounds that can exit, you know, through the lungs.
Plus, you know, all kinds of particles and debris from the air that you breathe in, you know, that gets trapped, that comes out in the breath.
So there's lots of things your body is trying to get rid of, and those things get trapped in the masks.
So there are also various bacteria that are in your lungs that come out with the exhalation.
And we also breathe them in from the environment and they probably communicate between the environment and our body.
But they essentially get also trapped in the mask, and then they probably proliferate there because there's all these toxins that are built up In the fibers, and they're just breaking those things down.
And that's really what we saw.
Now, I've also seen through individual people that have come to me seeking consultation that several people have had illnesses from the masks.
So one patient or client had a pneumonia-type illness that happened within several days of having to wear a mask all day at work.
And another client developed a skin infection, impetigo, that started right around the mouth, which is the typical, but it actually progressed to the exact shape of the mask.
And, you know, her doctor had just given her stronger and stronger antibiotics, like, for several months until it was obvious it was the shape of the mask.
And then she took the mask off.
It was better in, like, three days.
Unbelievable, but I guess not surprising.
But, you know, speaking of masks, it's as if the medical establishment is trying to coerce people to do the worst possible things for their health.
Masks, lockdowns, isolation, no sunlight, all these things.
And I want to bring your attention then to Israel.
And ask for your commentary on this, because Israel is in quite a conundrum.
They have about an 80% vaccination rate, mostly with the failing Pfizer vaccine.
So 80% vaccination rate, and yet, and they've had strict lockdowns, strict travel restrictions and so on, yet they're having record hospitalizations and, you know, quote, infections, however they determine that.
And they're confused.
They're very confused because they're telling themselves, we did all the right things.
We mass vaccinated everybody.
We locked everybody down.
Everybody wore masks.
And why is this, quote, virus still spreading?
So from your angle, as then challenging the entire premise of the germ theory, how would you explain more simply what Israel is going through?
Yeah, well, I think you really hit the nail on the head.
It's all of these policies that, if anything, are creating the illness.
We know that lockdown policies and taking away people's economic opportunities and just the employment rate has a known mortality.
For every percentage of unemployment that increases, we know the mortality rate increases.
We've seen upticks in things like suicide and overdoses, and those all contribute.
But we have really now, especially in Israel, where they have such a high compliance rate, and they really coerce the population there into doing this, that they're essentially injecting poison in 80% of the people.
And so that is resulting in all kinds of illness, but they're not attributing the illness to They're trying to make everything look like it's caused by a virus.
And that's really the main brunt of this whole psychological operation, because that virus is an existential threat, and it creates fear.
And when people are under strong fear reactions, they're much more easily...
manipulated.
And that's the reason for keeping it alive.
And so all of the narratives like the variant, for example, even things like the so-called antibody dependent enhancement, where it's a combination of the vaccine and the virus that's going to kill you, perpetuates the idea that there's a scary virus.
And you even see predictions now.
I saw a paper or an editorial from one of the prominent newspapers saying that they're expected a new, you know, deadly variant this flu season and they're going to call it COVID-22.
I saw that.
Right?
And that's going to keep going on.
Mike, if I could chime in here.
There's an ultimate irony here, which is, if you look at this question I keep asking, how do they...
You know, prove the existence of a virus.
It's through a cell culture.
The cytopathic effect in a cell culture.
How do you get the cytopathic effect in a cell culture?
As Andy, I think, said, it's simple.
You starve and poison the cell culture.
That's how you create the effect we call a virus, right?
And then it breaks down into lots of little particles and then you say, that particle is the bad guy.
Not that one over there.
Not that one over there.
Not the rest of the debris.
Just that one.
Now, the irony is, how do you make a virus?
You starve and poison cells.
How do you make people sick?
You starve and poison them.
Now, we have lots of creative ways of starving people, you know, having them eat, you know, food that's not actual food.
That's a kind of starvation, right?
And not being in the sunlight is a kind of starvation.
And not being around loved ones is a kind of starvation.
And not communicating, not going to your job if you happen to like your job, which most people don't, but anyways.
And then we poison them with poisons directly or masks, which create all sorts of stuff.
And then we say, why did they get sick?
That's how you make viruses.
Right, but it seems that this cycle of fear and claimed sickness never ends because we...
This reminds me of, let's say, a thousand years ago, superstitious, let's say, Pacific Islanders living on an island with a volcano, and you had the high priesthood there, and the high priesthood would say,"'If you don't please me, the volcano gods will get angry.'" And that's why you have to do what I say.
But today's virologists are exactly the same.
They're saying that here's this horrible thing that's going to kill you unless you listen to us and obey us.
You can't see this thing.
We can't even really see it.
Trust us.
It's there.
Just like the volcano gods are going to get angry.
Now it's just like the virus gods are going to get angry.
But they can't show us.
It's a spell.
It is.
It's astonishing.
And that's why, you know, in my book, I said this, as you aptly pointed out, this is not a new phenomenon in human history.
They wrote about this, you know, in the Sleeping Beauty fairy tale, that the The king and queen won't have a child.
They eventually have a child.
The bad witch puts a spell on them, and then she pricks her finger, and they all fall down like in lockdown, right?
Everybody stops working.
Nobody can see anybody else.
And then the kingdom is engulfed in toxic thorns, right?
So anybody who tries to go, they get killed.
And it only ends when the young prince says, I'm not afraid.
I don't buy this crap.
And then the whole spell has no power over here.
That's where we're at now.
We're under a spell.
And as long as we believe the spell, it has the power over us.
Well, clearly, and all the mainstream doctors are under this spell, but let me ask Dr.
Kaufman, and this is a legitimate question.
It's not a trick question at all.
I'm trying to understand this better.
Is there a phenomenon of some kind of infectiousness that may be due to something other than virus particles?
So can some people make other people sick if they share something?
Fluids?
Air?
I don't know.
Spit?
You tell me.
Well, you know, Mike, there's a lot to answer that question.
And there definitely is the phenomenon of contagion, right?
Because we see this in many areas.
Like, for example, we see that when women menstruate, sorry, that when women become close to each other, you know, in a relationship, a friendship, or things like that, that they begin to correlate their menstrual cycles in synchrony.
We know that laughter, yawning, and things like that are contagious.
And so we do communicate with each other.
And because the only thing that's been considered as a possible mechanism of this has been, you know, germs, they haven't really looked at what other ways we could communicate.
You know, there's a very little research on pheromones.
That is certainly one thing.
But things like empathy, mirror neurons, there are many ways.
And also, we can't overlook that we often are exposed to the same environmental circumstances or triggers.
You know, just like if we would eat at a restaurant and anyone who ordered, you know, the chicken ended up with diarrhea that night.
It's because we were all exposed to the toxin in that chicken.
And I think Tom and I would agree that we see, depending on how you categorize it, three or four causes of illness, and there's really nothing outside of that, and it's really starvation, poisoning, and trauma.
And the trauma can be, you know, of course, psychological or physical.
And we can really account for all illness that way.
Now, there are ways that you can get sick related to microorganisms because when they do their function of breaking down dead and dying material, sometimes they generate toxic waste, just like we generate toxins.
And we used to spread a lot more illness to each other when we had living conditions where 150 people shared one bathroom, and they were all exposed to each other's feces all the time.
So if you let bacteria grow on rotting flesh, for example, like on meat, that it will produce toxic waste products.
And this is what food poisoning is.
Staph toxin or botulism are all these things.
And sometimes even your own flesh will die, like from, for example, frostbite or a crush injury.
And the bacteria, while they're eating your own dead flesh, will create a toxin that can cause septic shock.
Like gangrene, we've all heard of this.
And that's why we simply remove that dead flesh from the body so that those toxins don't get into our blood circulation.
And then we can survive.
But that's very different than the organism invading and growing in our body and eating our tissue alive.
That just doesn't occur in nature.
I'm glad you clarified that's a really important distinction because I also want to ask you about the toxic spike protein particle.
So as I understand it, you agree that there can be particles that can be toxic or substances or poisons, you might call them, that can be toxic to human tissue.
Do you think the spike protein that's in the vaccines is one of those substances that's toxic to human cells?
Can I just address this for a minute?
So the question is, you can actually sort this out by doing research.
And it turns out there has been a fair amount of research on whether one sick person with a so-called viral illness can make another person sick who's not sick.
You could say, I mean, it's a reasonable theory because we all have the experience of some sort of transmission, right?
So it turns out I'm in possession of, I think there are last count, 12 peer-reviewed studies.
They were all done before the 1950s.
Because they stopped doing them.
Starting with the 1918 flu, where they took people in the throes of the flu and exposed them by coughing in their open mouth and sucking the snot out and squirting that up their nose.
And all these flu studies and cold studies that were very good, you know, quality studies.
And literally, nobody got sick.
And there was also a fascinating one with chickenpox, which a doctor friend of ours, who I won't mention her name, but she unearthed this study back from 29, where they took children with chickenpox lesions and they sucked the fluid out.
Of the lesions, the vesicles, exposed other children to it, and none of them got sick until they made a laceration and injected this unpurified vesicular fluid right into the tissue.
And then they didn't get chickenpox, they just got like a rash around the area.
Wow.
Could be from a lot of things.
But yet, I would say there is the experience of transmission, but it really is only through one whole organism, in other words, one human being to another, like women synchronize their menses.
Now, what is being transmitted?
I mean, I have theories, but nobody studies this, so we don't know.
Something is...
And usually it's a communication strategy or something like that.
I mean, a lot of times there isn't because it's same toxicity like Andy said or something like that.
But...
We can't forget, you know, there is something called resonance in the world.
There is communication of various sorts that, you know, all animals do to communicate, now it's time to eliminate some toxins.
Unfortunately, elimination of toxins is what we call chickenpox.
It's not a disease, it's a maturation step.
That explanation helps a lot, and thank you for that.
I was even saying, dismissing any claim of a viral replication engine, just a toxic particle or toxic molecule, let's say...
The government has a lab.
They synthesize a whole bunch of VX nerve gas, right?
And clearly, VX nerve gas is a toxic molecule.
But then what about a spike protein payload without any viral engine in it?
And they're claiming then it's an antigen target in the vaccines.
But it seems to me like they've just loaded vaccines with a toxic particle, kind of like VX nerve gas, but slower acting.
I guess that's my real question.
Yeah, Andy can deal with that question.
Okay.
So, you know, the spike protein is a little bit mysterious because it was never taken from an actual natural organism and purified out.
And they just basically constructed it on these computer sequences, so like the in silico sequence, and then they make it in genetically modified organisms.
Right, like as a recombinant protein.
So you can buy it in a vial from many different laboratories commercially.
And it has been studied and it does have toxicity, absolutely.
In these genetic vaccine products, you know, we're not sure if the spike protein is actually made because, you know, it's not in the vaccine, right?
The vaccine has the genetic code for For this protein.
But because they wanted to avoid doing any studies related to shedding, which are required for gene therapies, they had this thing classified as a vaccine so they could bypass that.
So they've never actually studied is the spike protein actually made in someone who gets these injections.
So I think it's really difficult to tell what is causing all of the vast number of injuries and deaths, you know, specifically.
It could be many things because the, you know, hydrogel or the lipid nanoparticle, that's the shell containing the genetic material, that also is a known independent toxin.
And then, of course, there are undisclosed ingredients which could be toxic as well.
Polyethylene glycol is one of them that I think is disclosed.
All right.
Next question to Dr.
Cowan.
Now, just some background for the viewers here.
Plate tectonics.
So here we have two guests who are challenging the germ theory.
And if you go back in history, there was a time when all the prominent scientists of the world thought that the idea that continents move was ludicrous.
And then one scientist came along and developed the theory of plate tectonics and changed the entire paradigm to show that the continents actually used to kind of fit together, that massive plates are moving around the planet over millions of years.
Okay, so that then became accepted by mainstream science.
So my question to you, Dr.
Cowan, is that...
Isn't it true that throughout the history of science, and there are many other examples, that paradigms that were widely accepted, such as, you know, the Earth is the center of the universe type of paradigm, widely accepted paradigms were overthrown through a scientific revolt, and that, would you say that that's the kind of action that maybe we need to see now?
Yes, although I would say that I don't know basically anything about plate tectonics.
That's okay.
I don't know whether that's...
I have no comment about that.
Okay, fair enough.
That was just an example, yeah.
Yeah, so it's probably a great example, but I just don't know anything about it, so I'm going to pass on that.
I mean, you know, this has been building up for, you know, hundreds of years, really.
And, you know, I would say in fairness, if you want to go down that road, there is something that seems to be transmissible between people.
There's communication strategies between people.
Now, if you go back even thousands of years, there were many explanations for what energy, waveforms, all kinds of things as explanations for how living organisms communicate with each other.
And, you know, we know that plants and trees communicate with each other through chemicals in their roots and through, you know, something called biological resonance, which is being more and more demonstrated actually in very clear laboratory studies.
Unfortunately, it's like we put all our eggs in this one basket that it must be a microbe.
And it turns out, you know, that if you just do science and say, you know, science means you isolate the thing you're looking for to see if that's the problem, right?
That's how we think.
If you do that, you find out that's not the problem.
And it's not that, as Andy said, you can get bacteria living in a tissue and it can actually choke the tissue off.
It can actually create toxins which cause you trouble.
But just because a bacteria or a so-called virus is present is not the same as saying that it's the cause of the trouble.
That's just a logical fallacy.
Got it.
Right.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Dr.
Kaufman.
Well, I'm just going to add that really what's happened here is that the whole enterprise of science and medicine has really been kind of infiltrated and manipulated towards certain ends.
And the main overarching philosophy has been materialism.
And when experiments go against that, they're essentially ignored.
And in medicine, we have since the Flexner report and the changing over of medical education, we have only this allopathic system of so-called cut-burn poison that is operating.
And germ theory is the major philosophy behind that.
And so all of the research now, you know, it used to be that the military just provided all this funding for scientists and gave these unrestricted grants because they knew that if they let people be creative and use their ingenuity, they would come up with valuable technologies and research.
But those days have been long gone, and now all the research practically is funded by the government and some by private industry with financial interests.
But all of the government research around disease is focused on germ theory.
And so you can't get funding from To study any other mechanisms like bioresonance or EMF field theory or anything like this because it's predetermined.
And you also have the compartmentalization.
And the example we brought up before about the contagion, there actually is academic study of this in the area of sociology.
But the sociologists have limited skills and they don't understand biology or biophysics.
And so they don't have the intellectual capacity to look at what could be the causal mechanism.
So they just describe it sociologically.
And then it turns out to be pretty meaningless because it's just an observation.
And because of that compartmentalization, that's why all scientists don't know that these little virologists over here at the edge of this plank are about to walk over the edge.
And nobody realizes it because they don't even understand exactly what experiments they're doing.
They don't talk to each other and they're not cross-trained.
Well, it seems like as this draconian science is progressing, it's narrowing the allowable window of debate.
It's even cannibalizing itself to the point where with this outbreak, then only vaccines are allowed to be represented as a treatment.
Not even other prescription drugs that happen to have...
You see Big Pharma cannibalizing itself and saying, no, the only thing allowed are vaccines.
In fact, there was a story I think today that YouTube is banning people, videos, people who offer prayer as a treatment for COVID instead of vaccines.
So you're no longer allowed to pray for health.
Which tells you a lot about where this is going in terms of big tech, doesn't it?
If I could even give you another example of what you were talking about before.
This story needs to be corroborated.
I spent a lot of this last year and a half or so looking for old studies and studies that really looked at this microorganism causation of disease.
And you know, Andy's right, in the old days, now we're talking 1890, 1900, the U.S. Army was very worried about malaria.
Because it was a big problem in Panama and places like that.
So they went there and they said, yeah, there's not much malaria.
And then they started using arsenic and essentially weed killers, herbicides.
And then they saw the increase in malaria.
Then they had a theory that, well, it's passed through this, you know, the bite of a mosquito and it, you know, essentially takes this bacteria and transmits it from one to another.
So they took some of the soldiers with malaria and they put their arm in a thing, you know, and then they put a bunch of mosquitoes in there.
And what they said in the papers was the mosquitoes wouldn't bite somebody with malaria.
Right.
It's like the mosquitoes, you know, because they read our books, they said, no, there's something wrong with this guy.
He has some poison in there.
I'm not biting him.
In which case, they couldn't possibly have transmitted it.
And so they ended up thinking this is just, you know, essentially herbicide toxicity.
That's why we're getting this.
Now, I'm not saying that's 100% true, but what I'm saying is they had the license to look at what really was happening.
Let's look at this and see.
There's no way you could do a study like that now.
Have either of you, and we're almost out of time, I want to be respectful of your time, but have either of you looked into the theories of Rupert Sheldrake and morphic resonance?
Absolutely, yeah.
Okay, because I found some incredible information.
I actually did a talk about this, about the formation of glycomolecules, sugars, and how they would freeze at certain temperatures, and then once one Right.
What are your thoughts on morphic resonance?
I mean, my thought is it explains a lot.
That doesn't mean it's true.
But I don't see why we don't want to live in a culture and in a, if you want to call it a civilization, that says, okay, let's look at this.
Let's try to figure out whether it's true or not or how it works.
Yeah, why can't we ask questions?
Yeah, why can't we ask questions?
I mean, I don't know.
I'm just some guy.
But I don't want to be told that question isn't allowed.
That just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Because, you know, like I used to learn in medical school, they used to say, Well, we believe that only material substance exists.
So I say, do you love your wife?
He says, yes.
Well, where in you is this thing called love?
You see, because nobody really believes that, right?
Nobody believes that that's all there is to a human being or life.
Yet we pretend, it's this spell again, we pretend that that must be true.
And we don't look at it and we don't say, well, where does this phenomenon of love come from?
Well, it's even, and Dr.
Kaufman, I'll ask you to chime in, but it's even more, even it gets to the debate about consciousness and the soul and essentially what the materialists are arguing is that inside your skull is another tiny little person controlling you and inside that tiny little person is another tiny little person inside their skull and it's this self-reinforced materialism garbage that makes no sense.
No sense.
Dr.
Kaufman?
Yeah, well, you know, there's so much we really don't know about these things, and especially if you don't take for granted what you're told.
Like, for example, with genetics, you know, the whole theory of genetics says that every protein in your body is coded for by a gene, and perhaps there might even be more than one gene required for a single protein.
Yet, we have, you know, over 100,000 proteins that are designated as human proteins, but only about 20 to 25,000 genes.
So in other words, we don't code all the information and look at the complexity of how our bodies work with, you know, billions of chemical reactions going on every second or every microsecond.
So where is all the information that is coding everything and running all that complexity coming from?
We know that that our brains don't have quite that capacity.
So there has to be some informational field or other source of information, you know, outside of our physical bodies that allows the complexity of our functioning and our physiology to occur at all.
That's something that really fascinates me and I would like to be able to explore that scientifically and see where it leads.
I'm so glad you brought that up.
You've hit on a really important point.
Actually, I think this underlies this whole discussion where this assumption by mainstream science that genes encode the entire whole being of a human being is utterly fraudulent.
The human genome project itself was a complete failure.
They sequenced something, but none of that described even the position of a finger on a hand.
Much less behavior or physiology or chemical functions inside your liver.
None of that is found in the genetic code.
Dr.
Cowan, go ahead.
Or why you would ask, how does this work?
Right, right.
Where's the gene for the question of how does a gene work?
I mean, I'd love to see it, you know, because I don't think it exists.
And we are an information field.
And you know what's the shocking thing?
And I just did an interview with a guy yesterday from Italy who went a long way to describe how information gets downloaded into our water, which is basically the world's Most sophisticated, you know,
fractal geometric encoding system and creates, you know, an outcome sort of like, you know, the water is like the radio and then there's information fields coming through the light and the earth and the sun and through thoughts and feelings and who knows what that gets downloaded by the water and creates life.
And we're looking for, like this three-year-old friend of mine, we were riding in the car and my voice came on in an interview and he said, Tom, how did you get into the radio?
And that's what we're looking for.
It's nonsense.
It's not in the radio.
Well, we've opened up the doors for, I think, a future interview.
I hope you'll join me again at some point.
Let's talk about genetics.
Let's talk about morphology or even how about the embryonic development.
What information drives that process?
Right.
Because I think we're getting to the real core here of that much of what we're told is a complete fraud or, at best, it's a very tiny fraction of the big picture.
Yeah.
I just want to thank you.
Any final thoughts, either one, for today's discussion?
I just want to thank you, Mike, for I'm just so impressed that I'm not brown-nosing here.
I'm just saying what I think, which is I am very impressed with...
We all couldn't believe this, right?
We just couldn't.
And then we looked and we looked, and there's something was going in our minds saying, just stay with logic, stay with your trust, your common sense, and your scientific integrity, and then you come to the right place.
Well, absolutely.
Thank you for your persistence.
And Dr.
Kaufman, any final thoughts?
Yeah, well, also, you know, it takes, you know, it's really difficult to be open to changing your mind about things and definitely, you know, especially to admit when you're wrong.
And we've all kind of gone through that on this issue.
And, you know, it's really important that we're going to also learn new things in the future that we're going to realize we are wrong about other things.
Yeah.
So in the spirit of that, the reason why this is so, so important is because every single aspect of the tyranny and the world-changing events going on right now is all predicated on this one simple fact that there exists a dangerous pathological virus.
And once you can understand that it actually doesn't even exist, let alone cause a new illness, then you can be free to easily see through what All of the fraudulent and misleading research, rhetoric, and tyrannical policies so that you can make a decision,
you know, how you can really protect your family and what is really the danger here, which is losing freedom to a dictatorship and not being risky and getting sick with an imaginary virus.
Yeah, well said.
I'm glad that this isn't the 18th century where the CDC would say the only allowable treatments are mercury vapors and bloodletting.
Well, I don't know.
Pfizer's pretty close.
Yeah, pretty close.
Yeah, they're getting to that.
Maybe that's next.
We're going to go back in time.
But thank you both.
I want to give out your websites.
AndrewKaufmanMD.com.
We'll put it on screen for you.
And also DrTomCowan.com.
And thank you both for joining me today, and thank you for your explanations.
It's been an honor learning so much from you.
I hope we'll do it again.
Thanks, Mike.
Thank you both.
This has been Brighteon Conversations, folks.
Share this video everywhere.
You have permission to repost it.
But also link back to brighteon.com so we can have more conversations that are not allowed on YouTube.
You can't even pray on YouTube anymore.
Okay, thanks for watching.
Take care.
Survival Nutrition is our new free audiobook that you can download right now from survivalnutrition.com.
In this nearly eight-hour audiobook, you will learn life-saving secrets of how to use food, nutrients, plant molecules, trace minerals, and chemical compounds to save your life, even in a total collapse scenario.
I'm Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and I'm the author of Survival Nutrition.
I founded and run a multi-million dollar food science laboratory, and I'm the author of the best-selling science book, Food Forensics.
I'm also a prepper, a patriot, and a survivalist.
I can teach you how to survive what's coming by growing your own food, medicine, and antibiotics that can help keep you healthy and alive even during the worst of times.
At survivalnutrition.com, you'll be able to instantly download the full free audiobook as MP3 files.
▲
Export Selection