All right. Hi, everybody, and thanks for joining me on another Wednesday webinar. You check the sound. I think we’re okay. And again, I always appreciate you joining me and your feedback. And this week is our ninth anniversary sale for the company called Dr. Cowan’s Garden. So all of the things on the Dr. Cowan’s Garden and Dr. Tom Cowan’s site are on sale this week. So this is a great time to stock up on your favorite items. Some of my favorite items are the olive oil, and I like the shilajit. In fact, I was thinking pretty much all the fats that I eat now, besides just fat and food are either our ghee or butter that I get, that’s raw, that’s from a Amish farm.

The olive oil from our site and lard that we get from a farmer friend. So those are pretty much the four fats that I eat. I pretty much don’t add any other fat to the food. And of course, I eat food that seems to have fat in it. So the olive oil is great. I love the olive paste. And I drink olive leaf tea every morning. One cup. I’m not a huge tea drinker and I don’t do. I don’t particularly like caffeinated teas myself, but I love the olive leaf tea. So check out the sale. And thanks for joining me.

And today I had two subjects. And these usually come to me because people send me different articles or I run across different articles on different things and thought that think that they may be of interest. They make people understand what’s happening in our world. And so that’s why I chose those. So let’s get to it. The first one was an article. Again, I think it was sent to me by some listener. And it was a piece. Let me just show it. So that may make it easier. So this was a piece in a thing called global research, April 8, 2025.

So it’s pretty recent by James Lyons Wyler. We’ve encountered him before. And I thought this was a very important article to go over to just understand what we’re up against here. So this is a dissection of a study done by the Cleveland Clinic. And they find the headline is, the Cleveland Clinic study finds Thimerosal containing vaccine increases the risk of influenza infection by 27%. So in other words, just to dissect this, what he’s saying, and I assume he wrote the headline, is that this is a flu shot that contains the mercury compound called thimerosal, and that people who get the flu shot get a 27% increased risk of having a flu infection.

That’s, that’s the first claim. And so then he goes on. And so if you hear that, you would think like, not that any of us want anybody to get the flu or to get sick or to have harm in any way, but this certainly looks like it supports the case that vaccines are not safe or effective. They’re not good for you. And so then he goes on to talk about this study. So this is a major prospective cohort study, a direct challenge to prevailing public health dogma. The season’s influenza vaccine was not just ineffective, it was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of infection.

And then he goes on to dissect it even further. So there’s 53,402 health care employees tracked over the 20, 24, 25 respiratory viral season. Those who received the flu shot at a 27% higher risk of contracting laboratory confirmed influenza compared to those who remain unvaccinated. And they calculated a vaccine effectiveness of minus almost 27% mean, meaning that the vaccinated were significantly more likely to become infected. And then he goes further. This is not a theoretical or model, it’s real world data. He tells you, the adjusted hazard ratio, the confidence interval, the P value and a whole lot of very complicated sophisticated stuff.

And it undermines policy and credibility. And then he goes into the study design which was robust and transparent, he says, led by Dr. Nabin something or other from the prestigious Cleveland Clinic. And the employees were working there and they were tracked as a time dependent covariant, a crucial design choice that allowed researchers to account for changing exposure status during the season. And then he goes through some other things. And by the end of the season, 82% had been vaccinated. 1,079 confirmed influenza infections, 98% due to influenza A. It was no fluke. People, you got to get this.

It was both unadjusted and adjusted. Cox proportional hazard models confirmed this. They did not. They explained that he’s trying, now he’s trying to explain the negative effectiveness. He says the authors did not speculate irresponsibly, but they highlight it could be strain mismatch, immune interference, immunological imprinting could all play roles. And then he goes on to say that the vaccine contains thimerosal mercury based preservatives used in many multi dose flu vials. It has a durable brain toxicity and they’re concerned about this and it’s not without precedent that this ends up with more infections. And he say then he Goes on why this study matters, a well designed study, most, most consequential flu vaccine studies published because of these reasons.

Real world design, risk based outcome, robust statistics, no industry funding. And then the implications of this study. Are we misinterpreting the effectiveness of vaccines? Have policies been wrong? Are we adequately surveilling the real world performance? This study calls into question the wisdom of universal flu vaccine that fail to deliver consistent benefits and may in fact cause harm. And then he suggests some way forward, banning thimerosal, labeling it as this product might increase your risk of flu. And then some calls for future studies. And then you can of course subscribe and follow him and find out more about the wonders of science.

So all sounds good, right folks? So we’ve got the goods on them. Not again that we want anybody to be sick or to be injured by a vaccine or be poisoned by mercury, but we’ve got the goods. Flu vaccines don’t work. They in fact make people get more sick. So just as a interesting experiment, I have a subscribestar group that meets every Thursday morning. And these are basically just lay people. I’m gonna keep myself small here for a minute because I’m going to go to another study. And so I decided to run this by him by not him by them.

So we’re talking about 30 or 40 and these are all lay people, more or less. They’re not really scientists or people who do research, not nobody of the so called scientific caliber of Dr. Lyons Wyler. So I asked them what do you want to know about this study? And literally nobody had to think. And then somebody that I’ve known for years who has nothing to do with medicine or science or anything said so Tom, how did they figure out that the people had the flu? Okay, let’s find out. It’s a good question because the whole study, if you say that this made people get the flu, it would be nice to know that you actually they did get the flu.

So what was it that they were measuring? And here Lyonsweiler says the endpoint was laboratory confirmed influenza infection via molecular testing. Nucleic acid amplification test for influenza A and B, otherwise known as NAT test. So then I went and looked at the actual study and here it is and it’s same author, so I know it’s the same study. And so of course we go down and they say the same things. And so he got basically it all correct. And we go to the methods section and so we’re looking for what is it that they actually measured here to say that These people had the flu, so they talk about, they got consent, etc.

Let me see if I can say the vaccine. Healthcare are encouraged to get it. They include all these people, age and sex, et cetera. Here we go. Influenza was defined as a positive nucleic acid amplification test for influenza A or B anytime after the study start date. And they did them all at the Cleveland Clinic. So that’s how they did it. So in other words, they didn’t ask or find out or discover whether anybody got sick, whether anybody had a fever or a cough or oh my God, I have the flu, or anybody didn’t feel bad in any way at any point after the study or after this, sorry, after the injection, all they did was do a nucleic acid amplification test for influenza A or B after the injection.

So let’s put this into very simple words and then we’ll go or first of all, let’s look at so what is a NAT test? Now some of you may be thinking, if you’re not so scientifically oriented, they captured a bunch of gnats and they asked them, do you think this person has the flu? And that would be ridiculous for two reasons. One, gnats don’t talk, at least as far as I know. And second of all, NAAT is not how you spell gnats. That’s G, N, A, T. So that’s obviously not what a NAT test is. So what is a NAT test? A NAT test is a nucleic acid amplification and PCR are both molecular diagnostic tests used to detect and amplify specific DNA or RNA sequences.

NAT is a broader term that encompasses various amplification techniques, including pcr. Pcr, on the other hand, is a specific type of NAC that uses a thermal cycling process, etc. The important point to know about that is a NAT test is not asking NAT who has the flu. It’s basically doing a non specific PCR test. In other words, again, they didn’t ask if people got sick. They didn’t see if they had a snotty nose or a runny nose or a cough or died or felt bad or missed work or anything that you would actually check with biology or illness or medicine.

Instead they did a non specific PCR test which was meant to tell them whether they had the flu or not. So let’s now get even more specific. So what did they do? They inject a whole bunch of employees at a health care facility with a bunch of poisons and allegedly with nucleic acid sequences. Then over the next Weeks, days, months. They test them for whether they have similar sequences in their in their blood or in their mucus. I’m not sure what they used as the sample. Right. Sorry about the phone. So let me say that again.

They inject a bunch of people with a bunch of poisons and cell culture debris and toxins, et cetera, and some sequences, and then some people they don’t inject with that stuff. And then they test them over the weeks and days and months later to see whether they have similar sequences in their either snot or in their blood. And that’s the definition of the flu. Now interesting. Not that I want to keep making a habit of this. If you ask, actually ask a grok AI, which I had a friend do, has a nuclear amplification test been validated to only and exclusively mean the person with a positive test does in fact have an illness called influenza? 1 sentence and simplify for a layperson, including the implications related false assumptions made in the article.

Does the article presuppose things it doesn’t have direct evidence for which damage its credibility? Answer no. A NAT test isn’t proven to mean that only a positive result equals influenza sickness. It just finds certain genetic bits that might not even come from a virus making you ill. And the article wrongly assumes that these tests nail down flu and that the vaccines boost infection risk, building its case on unproven guesses that shred its trustworthiness. So I’m going to stop the share here. So what just happened in this test? What the bottom line is there was no evidence that anybody got sick, that anybody had an illness called influenza.

There is no definition of what an influenza is and how you distinguish an influenza sickness from any other kind of quote, respiratory illness. All they did was do a is again, inject some people with poisons and sequences and some other cell culture stuff and then see whether over the days, weeks and months they had more of those sequences for whatever reason than the people that they didn’t inject. This is not science folks. This is nonsense. So ask yourself the questions. How did they validate that these people had the flu? What is the gold standard that they made them, allowed them to find out the false positive and false negative rate of this NAT test? Where has that been done? And then since we are told that nobody has ever successfully purified a virion that is a virus from the host, how do we know that these sequences they’re testing for came from a, quote, virus and not from the host? We have no way of knowing that.

And I would love to see the proof that a non specific PCR test is able to diagnose a disease, is able to prove without having purified that virus, that that sequence could have only come from that virus, and that no other animal or plant or anything that could be in the mucus could possibly have that sequence. Because all of those things we know for sure aren’t true now. So what is the upshot of this article by Lyons Wyler? It’s nothing else but to validate that PCR, or a non specific pcr, meaning a NAT test, is an appropriate, scientific, validated way to diagnose illness.

That’s what he is writing this for. And I can tell you if I’m Klaus Schwab or Tedros or Fauci, I love me some James Lyons Wyler because he just told all the freedom people that the way of science is you diagnose diseases and viruses simply by a nucleic acid amplification test. Even though everybody knows that isn’t true. But this is what this entire study is based on. And so anytime anybody does a PCR or NAT test for the avian bird flu or measles or HIV or hantavirus, or on and on and on, according to the logic and reasoning of Lyon’s Wiler, you have to accept it as being true.

You don’t need to ask what was the illness they had? What were their symptoms? How do you know those symptoms are specific for that illness? How do you know those sequence came from the virus? How do you know that no other living being has those sequences? How do you know the sequences weren’t created in the chemical mixtures used in the amplification process? None of those things are known. We all know that. And so this is absolutely bogus, ridiculous science by one of the scientific leaders of the Maha community and we, the Maha community, was just bamboozled by this nonsense, which was has only one purpose as far as I can see, which is to indoctrinate you into the idea that a PCR or even a non specific, if that’s even possible, PCR test is a valid way to diagnose illness.

Which is exactly the play that the people who mean you harm want you to believe. And Lyonsweiler was the person who sold that to the people who otherwise are skeptical. That is the only conclusion you can draw from his analysis of this study. So nobody should use this study as evidence that the flu shot does you no good. Now, just to be clear, I’m not saying that injecting people with cell cultures from people taken from SNOT from people who are sick. And then cell cultures and mixed with thimerosal is a good thing. And I can imagine all kinds of reasons why it would make you sick and cause breakdown of your tissues, which might actually make the test be positive.

I don’t, I don’t really know why it would make the test positive, but injecting you with similar sequences, causing breakdown of the tissue, etc. Are all possible reasons why that would happen. But to use this as scientific evidence will only backfire on you because then by the same reasoning, if they get a positive result that based on an NAAT test, hantavirus vaccine is good for you, you have no choice but to accept it as a scientifically valid study. And that’s how they’re setting you up. Now, I don’t know that he’s doing this willingly or, you know, consciously.

I doubt it. I think he’s just being used as somebody who seems to not have any clue as to what actual science is about. Now, I always try to be fair and entertain the possibility that I got this wrong. And so therefore I like to put out how would I be convinced that I got this wrong? So hopefully somebody will show this to him and he will either admit that I was correct, that this is a scientific nonsense, and he retracts any conclusions based on such nonsense, or he shows me the following. So how was it accurately determined that these people had the flu? What is the gold standard? Was it symptoms or was it simply a test? And if it was simply a test, how did they validate the false positives and false negatives of the test? What did they compare it with? So those need to be answered if you’re going to use this test to say that people got more, more flu as a result of the vaccine.

And then we need to see the study that proves the origin of all the nucleic acid sequences that were found and claim to be positively identify the virus and that these same sequence are not found in any other organism that could have possibly interfered with the mucus or been part of the mucus, such as the person. We need to see those studies and I can guarantee you those studies don’t exist. He won’t show us those studies. He won’t say, yeah, without those studies it’s obvious, even as the stupid AI thing says that this is not science, this is just superstition and we shouldn’t use this because it will backfire and it will actually poison the whole campaign of using science to figure out what is going on.

And instead what we’ll hear is some lame excuses. He’s too busy working on genetic causes of autism and he can’t possibly take the time to address things like this, etc. Etc. So I await his response. I’d be happy to show it and let’s see if we get it. Okay, the next subject and by the way, I thought about, I didn’t see this before, but this would been a good piece to put to have as an as April 1st and also April 15th. I think those two dates denote the same thing. As far as I can see, they’re all about fools.

So April 15th and April fool. So in the spirit and the honoring of those two days, let’s look at this next article again. It was sent to me and let me share this. Now the context was this was an article that was on Robert Malone, another prominent scientist, so called, on the involved in the Maha movement. And this is called Malone News. Now just to be clear and fair, he did not write this article. It was written by a guest editorial by somebody named Sophia Karstens who, I have no idea what that, who that is. And they also seem to think it is an appropriate article for to honor April 1st and April 15th.

And it was basically about the strategy of Kennedy and the Maha movement. And this is in response to the outcry of Kennedy saying that he endorses the MMR vaccine as the best way to stop the measles outbreak in Texas and now allegedly spreading to other states. And she, she actually tried to dissect the actual words that Kennedy used. And I, I also want to put this in context because as far as I can understand, and this is obviously my interpretation, but the Maha movement, and this includes the leadership in particular, in particular, which is big tree.

And Kennedy and some other so called scientists are essentially saying that the Maha movement is based on telling the truth at all times and entrusting the people, the people are wise and they can understand the truth and doing accurate good science like we just saw. So that is the goal here. So let’s now look at Kennedy’s words which she quotes. The most effective way to prevent measles is the MMR vaccine. And then she says this is a true statement. Now this, then we get into and we have to understand that now we’re up to that the Maha movement and Kennedy is Now up to 10 the 10th dimension chess game that they’re playing.

So first of all, she says this is a true statement. Now everybody listening to this or hearing this, as was the case, would, would, would accept this as an endorsement of the MMR vaccine. In other words, people should get the MMR vaccine to stop this outbreak of measles. That’s how they’re interpreting it. And she’s saying, no, that the MMR vaccine does prevent measles infection. I would love to see the proof of that as a true statement, but it doesn’t mean he was endorsing means. He was just saying a true statement. And as part of this 10th dimension chest tournament that he’s playing, apparently that at some point he’s going to lower the boom on the pharmaceutical industry and say, see, I didn’t mean this at any, at any time.

I didn’t mean that people should get the vaccine. It’s obviously not good for these reasons and we have the true science to show it, just like the influenza study. And I was just, just saying this in order to play this game. So that’s essentially what the article is about. In other words, as we’ve heard over and over again, our goal, our commitment is to tell the truth at all times and trust the people. And that is why we can’t, obviously, people tell you the truth because you can’t handle the truth. We’ve heard that over and over again.

And we have to play the political game. We have to play the game of the people who are out to get us and say things that aren’t true or are misinterpreted so that eventually we can get to the truth. And with our, with our proper science, we will be able to stop this vaccine industry and hamstring the pharmaceutical industry. And essentially, this is what this article is about. And that’s what they want you to believe. That saying all these things, getting people to think that the MMR vaccine is the way to go, is the way to prevent these vaccines.

Somehow that is the truth and that will lead us to this magical place of bringing down the pharmaceutical industry. So I’m not sure I buy that. I’m not sure anybody listening buys that either. And as a result of that, I thought for this and other, other reasons, that we should actually change the name of the Maha movement, because also, it’s also fair enough to say you don’t want to make any make America healthy again. You want to help America become healthy again. So that’s a much more polite and connected way of saying we’re going to help America become healthy again.

And so that means we have to change the motto. And I ended up making a hat. I don’t know if you can see this. And the new motto is this should be called the HAHA movement because Help America instead of Make America. That is the HAHA movement. And I also thought that we could make T shirts. And I made a T shirt this that I think you can see, and it’s called it. You can hopefully see this. And it says haha because the joke is on you. So hopefully that will catch on. I think it’s a much more accurate description of this movement and that that can be the new motto.

Because it seems to me that that is what’s happening here. And the people are giving their energy and time into a movement which is using horrible science, is accepting the use of these tests like PCR and NAT tests to tell us who’s sick and who isn’t, which can only lead to one thing, and that’s more bird flu epidemics, etc. And I just really don’t think that’s the way to go. And we need to go in a whole different direction here as soon as possible. So that’s what I wanted to say about that. And I think I’m going to finish a little bit early and I look forward to everybody’s comments and maybe we can have a contest.

So if somebody wants to make a T shirt with the HAHA movement on it, with appropriate graphics and logos, we can see if we can drive a whole new business of getting people to actually see what’s happening here. Okay, everybody, thanks for listening and I look forward to your comments and feedback and I hope you have a great week.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.