Dr. Cowan: It's
So that's where we are.
So I could go into how they
misled themselves into thinking they have this virus, but this is a
scientific fraud and interestingly, just three days ago, a group of
European virologists and pathologists dissected this... the basis of
using this study, which is the basis of all
the PCR tests, all the
testing is pure scientific fraud and they demanded that this journal
retract the article.
Interviewer: So then explain to me what's going on. There are
cases reported, there are deaths reported.
How is this all happening
and being reported on if there's not a virus?
Dr. Cowan: First of all, what are these people seeing at the site?
What is a virus?
So that's where it gets very interesting because it
actually leads you into understanding what is going on. Because in
certain cases, like chickenpox, you do see these particles (I can
show you a picture of them if you want) and they are at the site of
But we already know that, just because you have strep
in your throat, doesn't mean it's causing disease.
In order to prove
causation, you have to isolate the virus, you have to take the
chickenpox out, you have to prove that you don't have anything else
in there, no poisons, no snot, no nothing, just the virus. Exposing
the animal to it.
They did that for 20 years - they couldn't make
any animal sick. So the question is, what is it doing there?
And it's a very interesting question because it gets into the
"How do we even know that it's coming from the outside?"
Because it turns out that, when you have tissue, as I described
earlier, and you starve it and poison it, it packages up little
pieces of degraded DNA and packages them up in particles as a
detoxification and communication strategy.
In other words, if you
break down the tissue, there's a poison-relief mechanism, which we
have erroneously... coming from the inside.
or intracellular vesicles. Now, there's an article in a journal
called "Viruses" which looked at this question,
"How do we know that
these are from the outside and not from the inside?"
And they said
something very interesting:
"However, to date a reliable method that
can actually guarantee a separation of exosomes from viruses does
Everything that's a "thing" can be separated and isolated from every
If I have a fork here, I can separate it from a spoon
because they're different. There's only one reason that I can't
separate an exosome, which is a detoxification strategy from the
inside, from a pathogenic virus from the outside, and that's because
they're the same thing, and that's why I can't separate them.
In other words, something is poisoning the tissue, the tissue then
packages up this degraded genetic material, we mistakenly call those
pathogenic viruses - and here's where it gets interesting - because
we now know that those pieces of genetic material can resonate out
into the world as a signal for other organisms as a signal that
something bad has happened, some poisoning has happened and you
should defend yourself.
This is how trees communicate. If you get beetles
eating a tree, they put out chemicals and other signals that
communicate to the other trees that there are beetles around and you
should defend yourself.
This is because the
Darwinian model of evolution based on mutations
and survival of the fittest is pure nonsense because it's way too
If you were exposed to
glyphosate and one person had a
mutation that allowed them to survive from that exposure, do you
know how long it would take for that to spread through the whole
Ten thousand years, if that, even from Boston, for god's
So nature has another mechanism which is called viruses or
exosomes. So you package up this material.
The DNA or RNA has a
resonance, just like women communicate with their menstrual cycles
through resonance and a lot of unseen energies communicate through
resonance - that's what we call life.
And then the other organisms
can make the same piece of genetic material and turn that into
proteins to defend themselves.
So viruses are the mechanism of evolution. They're the mechanism of
adaptation. A war on viruses is a war on evolution and adaptation.
It's a war on life.
So the question then is,
"What is poisoning us?"
That's the question.
Now, when you look at the symptoms of the disease called
and you forget about the virus, because the virus has never been
isolated, it's basically imaginary.
So any therapeutic so-called
maneuver like wearing a mask or social distancing or washing your
hands to get rid of something that hasn't even been proven to exist
is just nonsense.
It doesn't work at all - it just makes you sicker.
So what do we know about the disease?
Now, most of what are being
called "cases" are just PCR tests which mean nothing. And I mean
nothing: there are no "false positives" here because you cannot use
that test without having compared it to an intact virus.
So a case
means nothing. So there are sick people. Now, most of the sick
people are just the usual sort of sick people. But there are some
sick people who are hypoxic and have what's called "a
Now, how do they get
nothing to do with any virus - viruses don't make you hypoxic.
But we do know from clear scientific research going back to the
seventies, the Naval Intelligence Research Institute did this, the
Soviets did it, there are recent papers on it, that if you expose a
place to millimeter waves,
otherwise known as 5G, three things will
You'll degrade the oxygen in the atmosphere, so you're
essentially, like this one ER doctor said, it's like these people
are walking up the Himalayas.
I think his name was
said they're in a low-oxygen environment but yet they're in New York
City or Wuhan or on a cruise ship that just had 5G installed.
happening is the millimeter waves are degrading the oxygen in the
atmosphere so they're actually like they're on the top of a
The second thing is that it interferes with certain pathways in
your mitochondria, which are organelles in your tissues that use
oxygen to make fuel.
We know this, again, going back to research
from the seventies.
So you become tissue hypoxic, you're starving of
there's less oxygen in the atmosphere
you can't use the oxygen that you do have and turn it into fuel,
which is the whole point of oxygen in the first place.
another thing that happens as a direct result of exposure to
millimeter waves along with aluminum in the air and air pollution
and fear and bad food and lots of things, but the millimeter waves
are the new kid on the block.
And the third thing it does
- which we know - is that it creates
a hyper-inflammatory response, otherwise known as a
which is the body's way of getting rid of diseased tissue.
a disease, but if you - basically we're talking about radiation
sickness. So you radiate the tissue with millimeter waves, it breaks
The body says "I have to get rid of this".
It uses the same
mechanism [which the body uses] to get rid of cigarette smoke or
splinters: you create an inflammatory response, which the
unfortunate doctors, alternative and otherwise, say "Oh, you have
too much inflammation - that's your disease".
Inflammation is your
body's only way of getting rid of dead and diseased tissue. But it
can be so overwhelming that it actually kills you.
So you die from
hypoxia and an over-enthusiastic inflammatory response and that is
exactly what fits with Covid-19, from millimeter waves.
Now I would point out that we have the epidemiology for this, we
have the mechanism, which I just went through.
But people have
criticized me for - you know, I'm very particular about viral
causation. We know there has never been the virus isolated so you
can't possibly know if caffeine is causing high blood pressure if
you've never isolated the virus and made any animal or person sick.
So we know that's not the case.
And I actually think we should do
clear research to show once and for all whether millimeter waves,
otherwise known as 5G, actually cause hypoxia and inflammatory
cytokine storm and are basically the reason for this problem.
Because, if I'm right, we have two very interesting factors here.
umber one, we have a test which we can change the cycles on the
test to make more and more people be positive. Because it turns out
that the primers - the primers are the sequences that they're
testing for, right?
They have never been linked to a certain virus.
It turns out if you do what's called a "BLAST" search [Basic Local
Alignment Search Tool], where you can look at the human genome
project, they list every genetic sequence found in human beings,
there is at last count 93 human sequences which match up exactly
with the primers being used for the coronavirus test.
words, they're testing for whether you're a human.
There's also about 90 that come from different bacteria and fungus.
So they 're testing for whether you're human or a bacteria or a
Now, you could say,
"Well, why doesn't everybody test
And the answer for that is that it depends on how much
degradation you have.
If you've been exposed to something and it
degrades your DNA, it will show up at a lower amplification cycle.
And if you haven't been degraded, you have to do more cycles.
the problem is,
if you do
more than 35 cycles, pretty much everybody
starts testing positive...
And so, in the hands of whoever is interested in this, they can make
more "cases" by turning up the number of amplification cycles.
you turn it up over 40, something like 60-80% of the population will
have enough degradation that they'll test positive.
have a 'pandemic'.
And then if you roll out some therapy like a vaccine and you want to
demonstrate that the vaccine reduced the number of cases, all you
have to do is reduce the number of cycles and lo and behold, now
only 10% show that they have this.
This is a very powerful weapon
in certain people's hands.
The other problem is you also have a mechanism for making people
sick. All you have to do is increase the exposure and the intensity
of the millimeter waves and more people will get sick, which is
likely what happened in Wuhan, and New York City and the cruise
ships and certain hospitals and nursing homes in northern Italy.
we have two controllable factors:
And that's an unprecedented
weapon in the hands of people if they choose to use it.
Interviewer: So what if people test positive, they quarantine, they
go through a couple of weeks of symptoms, etc.
Then they're done
with it, now they don't any longer have any symptoms.
exposed to the same electromagnetic radiation, the same
environmental toxins, so how do you explain that?
Dr. Cowan: They've used their virus to adapt. Just like any toxin.
They've had exposure to a toxin, they've then used their vir… they
excrete these particles called exosomes to detoxify, to make
something new happen, to make themselves more resistant.
That's one thing. The other thing is the tests mean nothing.
you do three tests in a day, you'll get different results because
the test means nothing. I keep saying that because, if you say
there's any biological significance to the test besides the fact
that you're degrading more readily, that's a scientifically invalid
There is no connection to any virus or any biological
process except, to a certain extent, that your tissues are
Just like any exposure to anything, you get an exposure, your body
adapts to it, it creates these detoxification mechanisms called
exosomes, and then you hopefully go on your way. That is what we
call being sick.
So there's a lot of people who have exposure and
they rest or whatever, then their body adapts to it and, as long as
it's not such a high intensity that would kill them, they basically
go on. But that's not the end of the problem because a lot of the
people go on to have chronic symptoms.
So they're still being poisoned by these electromagnetic fields
along with all the other toxins in the air.
Interviewer: Let's talk about the number of deaths that are being
On a normal news cycle, they're constantly reporting,
"Here's the amount of new deaths as a result of Covid."
and more of them every single day. They're disseminating this.
They're obviously getting their data from somewhere. All this is
being promulgated into the culture, about deaths due to Covid.
do you explain this?
Dr. Cowan: I mean, the problem is that there is no definition of
what Covid is.
So they can
manipulate the death certificates to make
them whatever they want. Because they've also essentially made it a
dictum that we're not allowed to do autopsies except in very rare
In fact, a group of European pathologists who were not
allowed to do autopsies and finally did 100 of them said,
no evidence in any of these autopsies that anybody died from any
kind of viral pneumonia."
So even people who believe in
virus theory say this looks like something else.
Everybody who works
with these people say this looks like something else. Now the
problem is, as I said, the test is positive from degradation from
If you have diabetes, if you have heart attacks, if you
have emphysema, if you have just the detoxification process that we
call the flu, if you're a papaya, according to the President of
Tanzania (John Magufuli, 1959-2021).
He was suspicious of the tests so he sent off a papaya and a goat
and a sheep - I think it was a pawpaw - and the pawpaw and the goat
tested positive and the sheep tested negative.
So lots of things
will cross-react with this test. Anybody who is sick will typically
And if you read the package insert of these coronavirus
PCR tests... here's one from the CDC:
"Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious
virus or that the 2019 n-Cov virus is causative agent for clinical
The FDA says:
do not rule out bacterial infections or co-infection with
other viruses. The agent detected may not be the cause of
The Roche PCR test - this is the test you're talking about:
"These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus
Let me say that again.
The Roche test, one of the most widely used
tests in the world, the package insert says you cannot use this test
for the diagnosis of coronavirus infection.
And I would love to ask the guy, so what should we use it for?
What is the purpose of a test that says clearly you
cannot use this test for the diagnosis of the very thing that
they're testing for. There is no PCR test that's cleared for use as
a diagnosis tool.
The PCR test is a manufacturing tool.
of the PCR test,
Kary Mullis, who was given a Nobel prize in
chemistry for creating this test, to his dying day said,
no evidence that my test can be used as a diagnostic test or to
And he said over and over again:
"The fact that
they used this test to prove that HIV causes AIDs is a scientific
travesty because there is no evidence that this test can prove
causation of any disease."
It's simply a way to make more genetic
material. It's a manufacturing tool.
And it's been co-opted, in one
of the biggest scientific fraudulent scams of all time, as a
diagnostic test, which it isn't.
Interviewer: So it seems like a lot of people are going to be
running to their local pharmacy or their doctor's lining up for this
What are you thoughts about that?
Dr. Cowan: Well, the first thing is, it's hard to imagine how you
can make a vaccine against a virus which you've never seen.
the virus hasn't been isolated, so basically we're talking about an
imaginary virus so it's hard to imagine how you could create a
vaccine that would have any benefit against an imaginary or
so-called theoretical - that was the word that
used in his paper.
We used theoretical sequences from a theoretical
virus. And I've often said to people, Oh, here's a theoretical chair
- please have seat.
And as far as I know, nobody can sit on a
theoretical chair or use a theoretical spoon to eat soup with.
And you can't have a theoretical virus make anybody sick. But the
real problem is how the scientific so-called community reports data.
And that's how they manipulate this. And that means we need to know
what this concept called "risk-reduction" means.
And the best way to
explain it is: if you do a trial, and let's say all the controls and
placebos were done properly, and so you have 10 people who take Drug
X to prevent heart attacks, and 10 people don't take Drug X.
end of a year, you see how many have heart attacks and 2 in the
placebo have heart attacks, and 1 out of 10 in the drug trial have a
Now, if you ask people, what is the benefit of taking that drug,
most people would say, 10% of the people who took the drug had a
heart attack, 20% of the people who didn't take the drug had a heart
attack, the benefit is 10%.
Right? What do the scientists report? They say it's a 33% reduction.
Now how did they get that number?
Because 1 + 2 = 3, and 66% of the people who had heart attacks
didn't take the drug, versus 33% who did, that's a 33% difference.
Now what if you did a million people? 1 out of a million people who
took the drug had a heart attack, and 2 out of a million people who
didn't take the drug had a heart attack.
That's .0001% I think - I
may have got the zeros wrong - versus .002%.
So what's the
difference? Most rational people would say the difference is .001%.
But what would a scientist say? They would say 33% reduction because
1 + 2 = 3 and 2 that is 33% higher than 3.
That 33% is biologically
meaningless because you could do 10 million, 100 million people, and
it just would be meaningless because nobody would take a drug that 1
out of a million people have a benefit from, especially because when
they report the side-effects, they'll say, well 10 out of - or a 100
million people have a side-effect, versus 10, so that's only a .009%
reduction, so that's not a big deal.
Now, what does this have to do with vaccines?
was reported a 94% efficacy against Covid-19. Now the first thing to
note in that trial is, nothing they did had anything to do with the
virus. They didn't even do PCR tests. They didn't do
transmissibility. They didn't do antibody tests. They didn't do
anything that had to do with the virus.
All they did was say,
has symptoms at day 14 that suggest they have Covid-19?"
did approximately 15 thousand people in each arm, placebo, which
wasn't a placebo anyway, but let's say it was, versus the vaccine.
And they said 90 out of the 15 thousand who took the placebo got
symptoms like palsy [?] and 5 out of the vaccine got symptoms that
sounded like Covid.
That's .6% of the people who didn't get the
vaccine got symptoms, versus .03% who did have the vaccine. That's a
difference of .57%. So how did they get 94.5%?
Because 90 + 5 = 95
and 90 is 94.5% of 95. That is an irrelevant conclusion, especially
turns out that 2-3% got side-effects from the vaccine that were
basically identical to the symptoms they were calling Covid. In
other words, fevers and myalgias, you're achey and you have a fever.
Approximately something like 600 compared to 90 or 5 got symptoms
from the vaccine as compared to almost none in the placebo. And they
report that as only like 4%.
If they reported that in the same way,
they would say there was a 600% increase in symptoms as a result of
taking this vaccine. That's the facts.
But they don't report it that
way and, because of the way they did the trial, there was no
possibility of it not working. Because they can put something in
there that makes you have less symptoms, like a steroid. And so you
have less symptoms. It has nothing to do with transmissibility. It
has nothing to do with the virus.
It has nothing to do with whether
you are going to get sick again. And they don't tell us what they
are putting in there so we don't really know. This has nothing to do
with even a vaccine. It has to do with putting a biologically active
substance and injecting that into people.
Now, a lot of people have actually tried to dissect, based on the
patents, of what is in the Moderna vaccine. And it seems like there
is some sort of a microchip, and some sort of electroporation device
which activates the chip.
And this is a dangerous, unprecedented
step for human beings, to be injected with something that may have
something to do with electromagnetic frequencies.
Now I don't know
for sure exactly what's in these because, like I say, they don't
report that accurately. But some people who have investigated this - and I would encourage people to look into it.
There's a doctor named
Christine Northrup who has looked into this and she's given many
interviews on what's exactly in these vaccines.
So I would strongly encourage people to look into this.
Interviewer: There are different companies manufacturing their
What are your thoughts on the various brands?
Dr. Cowan: The question of Pfizer and all the other vaccines.
mean, they're all variations on a theme, but they're all - as I
said, Pfizer doesn't have examples of the virus. What kind of RNA
are they using there? And what happens to the RNA?
unprecedented in human history to inject pieces of genetic material
like this into other human beings.
Interviewer: This is very worrying and scary.
What are your thoughts
about the future of Covid and the vaccines?
Dr. Cowan: So the question about what my outlook is.
All I can say
is, in a TED talk, I believe in 2015,
Bill Gates, who has a lot to
do with this, predicted that in the next 'pandemic' - which he didn't
say when - that 10 to 15% of the global population will die.
600 to 900 million people. That's somewhere between 20 and 50
million Americans. Now, is this going to happen? I don't know.
if there's some new biological toxin which we haven't identified
because we've been focused on the imaginary virus, my suggestion is
that people who hear me should look into this and see whether it's
about time we clean up our environment because I am not
particularly optimistic if we don't wake up to what's happening. On
the other hand, I think that whoever is behind this may have
overplayed their hand here.
And that people may not be willing to
take this fraud any more.
In which case we have an amazing opportunity to create a different
world. And I even have come to the point where I think there may be
influences on this from other realms.
Now I'm no expert on what
angelic realms or super-sensible beings or gods or angels are or
what they do but I have a feeling, which is not a scientific
conclusion, but this is a bigger deal than we think and there may be
spiritual entities or guides or helpers who may be very interested
in helping us with this.
And the problem is nobody will help if you
And maybe we could finish with - this is also not new because there
is a story called Sleeping Beauty, where sleeping Beauty was pricked
by the virus of materialism and the whole country went on lockdown.
They were asleep, and
Sleeping Beauty, which is essentially the
image for the spiritual world coming to rejuvenate and inspire
humanity, was asleep and she was engulfed by a wall of thorns, toxic
thorns, sort of like us. And nobody could come and save her.
different kings and princes and different people tried to save her,
but they were all engulfed and killed by the thorns.
prince heard about this story, a young man, and said,
"I can do
this. And they said, 'No, you can't do this. You'll be killed like
all the other ones."
And you know what he said?
And because he said he wasn't afraid, the thorns parted and
so it was easy. They didn't interfere with him. He went in, he woke
up Sleeping Beauty and the kingdom was restored to health and
So this is an issue of fear. If we allow ourselves to be afraid, we
have no chance.
If we can summon up the courage, it's a piece of
Interviewer: Dr. Cowan, thanks so very much for taking the time to
share your thoughts and views with us.