https://rumble.com/v1al81j-the-end-of-germ-theory-featuring-dr.-tom-cowan..html
This video is packed with great info about the scam of Germ Theory.
Some of it is stuff I have never heard before, and I have been studying this subject quite a bit.
How about this:
At about 16:00, he gets into the Spanish Flu. Turns out, it was caused by toxic vaccines.
The US Army carried out a large scale vaccination program in 1917-18, funded by Rockefeller, and supervised by Frederick Gates.
That program began in November 1917, and the "Spanish Flu" became a "pandemic" immediately thereafter. (The EXACT timeframe of Covid 19.)
The outbreaks began not in Spain or anywhere else in Europe, but in the USA. An overlay map of breakouts and US Army bases is an exact match.
This was the first time in history that multiple vaccines (up to 25) were injected into people at the same time.
It was clearly an exeriment, not a treatment. The results were massive illness with multiple "diseases," not just the sympoms of "Spanish Flu." (Same thing we are seeing today with the fake Covid vaxx.)
Some people in polio experiments lost their sense of taste and smell due to the poisons on the test swabs. (interdasting ...)
So much info in this video that I cannot summarize it all. Massive resource.
unpacking how Rockefeller money has, for over a century, used science to kill, disable, and control humans is a worthy rabbit hole.
but ask yourself, if there were no "germs" why then, during a time when it was near epidemic for postpartum mothers to get septic and die, did doctors figure out that if they dipped their hands in alcohol first the mothers did not get sick?
science progresses from proposing hypothesis, testing them, and duplicating results. the importance of "terrain" is well proven though not wholly predictable.
emerging technology is getting better able to distinguish "exosomes" from other extracellular vesicles -- and note the role of exosomes is that they are information carriers, including health creating 'information' such as delivering systemic benefits of exercise, they don't only act in viruses.
Proper sanitation and hygene has proved to be valuable tools for better health.
If you want to say that the alcohol is "killing the dangerous germs," then you have to provide some proof of that. I could just as easily say that there is magic fair dust in the alcohol that does the trick.
Why it works is worthy of research. But leaping to "it must be the germs" is not a scientific answer.
I would like to see research on that.
I was never interested in biology until the past 2 years. I have learned A LOT about so-called "scientific research" in the modern era. In actually reading papers, I have discovered that much of what passes for "science" is nothing more than absolute garbage.
As an example, I read a "study" that claimed a particular conclusion. The paper started with a statement of fact, something along the lines of SARS-CoV-2 causes Covid. They cited 2 papers to back up that claim of fact.
But when I looked up those 2 citiations, I found that one "paper" had one single paragraph that made factual claims, with NO citations and NO research to back up the claims. The 2nd citation was roughly the same, but with some added drawings that were supposed to prove something, but didn't even try to explain what or why.
That was the ENTIRE basis for the "SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of Covid-19" statement in the paper.
That means there was NO scientific basis for making that claim. The rest of the paper, therefore, was completely meaningless.
I have found variations of this theme several times since learning about the fraud that passes as "science" these days.
Maybe there is something to the exosomes, but a CLAIM that there is doesn't mean anything. It needs to be backed up with evidence via research.
"Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
you can agree that sanitation and hygiene are tools for better health, but the how and why it works is just pure speculation?
alcohol kills bacteria, or viruses with an envelope, by lysing or denaturing the outer lipid membrane. 'naked' viruses without an envelope are deactivated by oxidizing agents. no "magic fairy dust" required.
good to read research papers with a critical eye. often the abstract and conclusion make statements that are not supported by the body of the research.
I'd expect you to apply the same critical lens to Cowan. he uses other's research to make claims that even the researcher doesn't make. he oversimplifies the complex relationship between virus, host organism, and environment. his theory of exosomes is already outdated -- newer technology is improving methods to separate exosomes from viruses, and more is understood about the role exosomes and extracellular vesicles play in intercellular communication.
Extracellular Vesicles and Exosomes: Insights From Exercise Science
I am claiming that your opinion is not proven, anymore than magic fairy dust.
IF viruses have never been isolated to the point where a virus can be physically examined directly, then your claim is speculation, regarding viruses.
Show me this virus of which you speak, and I will reconsider.
Bacteria, of course, are real. Show me the research paper that proved your claim regarding alcohol, bacteria, and how this all solves the problem you say it does.
And while you are at it, show me the research paper that proved that it was the bacteria that was doing the harm, such that when the bacteria were killed it solved the problem.
It seems to me that you referring to claims that attempt to explain how alcohol solves the problem (claims made not by you, but by others who you believe). Is there research to back it up?
There was a story about how back in the day, a doctor might go directly from a morgue to a woman giving birth, and not wash his hands inbetween.
Once he started washing hands between, the rate of mortality of the women and children went down. Maybe there was something in the cadaver that was harmful to the living humans. Maybe using alcohol also helps, by washing off harmful material, such as bacteria and even viruses (if they exist). But I am asking: Is there any research to document this claim?
I am open to what you might have to show that Cowan is wrong.
Of course, we are adults here. We should not pretend to be so naive as to have disbelief that a researcher, who gets paid if he tows the line, might sometimes fall short of saying the obvious about the results of his own research, simply because he doesn't want to harm his own chances for his next round of funding.
If you can cite a specific example, I will take a look.
I am not a Cowan cultist. He could be wrong. He could even by lying. But if he is either, someone somewhere should be able to show how they know that to be the case.
Can you?
That is a vague (and therefore, meaningless) statement. Cowan says there is no virus, so no oversimplification of its complex relationship with other things is valid.
Show me how he is wrong. Whenever I see or hear someone make a vague claim like this, my experience has been that they are usually covering for the fact that they have no facts to back up their opinion.
I am willing to learn more about why you think this, but please be specific. Vague statements that are not related to any facts are not something I tolerate well.
Again, these are vague statements that, to me at least, mean nothing.
I recently had a conversation with a woman who is studying biology for her college degree. I moved the conversation into viruses, and discussed some of Cowan's ideas.
She disagreed, of course. So, I discussed the process that virologists use to "find a virus" (according to Cowan and others who agree with him, such as virologist Stefan Lanka), and all she could say is that they have "other ways to find it."
Well, that is a vague statement, so I tried to get her to explain. Turns out, she was referring to surrogate marker type of reserach, where a dye will show a "virual DNA" and such. But for anyone to KNOW with certainty that whatever that thing is really IS some DNA from a virus, we have to FIRST know that the virus exists, isolate it to study it, and THEN find the DNA. Only then can we go back and do these other studies.
From what I can tell the reason they do all these surrogate tests is BECAUSE they cannot look at the real thing.
If over 100 labs and "experts" in the world (such as FDA, CDC, foreign government equivelents, universities, etc.) have ALL said that they (a) do not have any SARS-Cov-2 isolated virus, (b) cannot point to any other lab anywhere in the world that has any, and (c) do not have and cannot point to any research paper anywhere in the world that has ever isolated this virus, then ... THAT is a problem.
All other "tests" are surrogate marker tests, and they are NOT a replacement for the real thing (which does not seem to exist).
If that is wrong, then set me straight -- but SHOW ME THE PROOF. Vague claims are meaningless babble, as far as I am concerned.
When I first heard of Tom Cowan, I took time to understand what he was saying. Then, I looked for anyone who was refuting what he was saying. I didn't find anyone.
Then, I found out he was also working with other people, who seem credible, and who do not seem to have anyone debunking them (in a MEANINGFUL way).
The ONLY thing I see from the other side are vague claims, surrogate marker tests that are weak attempts to "do something" since doing the actual research is impossible (for some strange reason ...).
So, your claims are interesting, but not persuasive.
Go beyond vague claims, and I will take a look.
I honestly don't mean offense or to be flippant, isn't basic chemistry required in school? or do you disagree with the "theory" of molecular bonding?
you being unconvinced about how something a simple as alcohol destroys (many) pathogens, or that there are pathogens, is just weird. like 17th Century-ish. maybe flat earth is next.
Cowan did not prove his theory.