➡ On February 28, 2025, the speaker discussed the alleged measles outbreak in Texas, particularly among the unvaccinated Mennonite community. He questioned the validity of diagnosing measles based on symptoms alone, as they are similar to other childhood illnesses. He also expressed his belief that the situation doesn’t require government intervention, suggesting that private individuals can handle such crises. Lastly, he planned to answer questions from the audience about the topic.
➡ To confirm measles, you need to isolate the virus, find parts of its genome, or detect antibodies against it. However, the methods used to detect measles have been questioned, as the virus has never been truly isolated. For a test to be valid, it must be compared to a ‘gold standard’ – a situation where the diagnosis is 100% certain. Without this, we can’t determine the false positive or negative rate, making the test invalid. This raises doubts about the existence of a specific measles virus and the effectiveness of the measles vaccine, as we can’t accurately diagnose measles or measure the vaccine’s impact.
➡ The speaker argues that measles diagnoses are unreliable and biased towards unvaccinated children, as they are the only ones tested. They believe that the tests used are not specific enough to accurately diagnose measles, and that there is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of a measles virus. They suggest that a healthier diet and certain treatments could help children overcome acute illnesses. They challenge anyone who disagrees to provide scientific proof of a measles diagnosis and the effectiveness of the tests used.

Okay, thanks Everybody. Today is February 28, 2025 and this is a special Friday morning edition of my weekly webinars. I don’t know if this will be a regular thing. It depends on whether there’s something that in my new role as shadow HHS secretary that I need to comment on. So the first thing I wanted to say is what? Why would I want to do this? Which is to say comment on current events as this, as if I was the HHS secretary. The first. So I thought of three basic reasons. Let me just check. Hopefully you can hear me.

So the first reason is I think it’s important for somebody in my position, meaning me, to at least explain how I see it and try to get the truth out as best I can, as best I know it. So I’m basically just saying how I see this issue. The issue that we’re talking about today is the alleged measles outbreak in Texas. I think it is. So what is the actual truth about this quote, measles outbreak? That’s the first reason. The second is I’m hoping it’s helpful because obviously I’m not the HHS secretary. And as far as I can see, besides the strategy of telling the truth, as hopefully I’ll lay out as best I know it, I don’t see there’s any other way out of this dilemma besides a full on pro vaccine response.

So this hopefully will be helpful to give another way that’s actually accurate to get out of that dilemma that the current HHS secretary may find himself in if he doesn’t want to go full on measles pro vaccine. The third is I’ve talked a lot about the fact that for most things and maybe actually for everything, we don’t need a government. The government just messes things up. It’s more of a superstition than anything else. And so this is sort of like modeling a private reaction to an alleged crisis or event. So in other words, I’m not part of the government, I have nothing to do with the government.

So I’m just some private person saying what I think is the situation and then what people can do about it. And, and so hopefully that’s an effective response that doesn’t need any government intervention. And so we can see it. We can see that we don’t need governments to tell us what to do when something allegedly happens like this measles outbreak. So those are my three intentions. And then somebody asked in the chat, I just happened to look at it on the YouTube. If I’m going to Take questions. So this is like, I’m sort of pretending this is like the press conference.

So I will actually, when I’m done, hopefully this will be fairly short. And then I will look on the chat and see if there’s questions. I’m not going to be able to scroll up. So it would have to be current questions in the chat about this subject, like, don’t ask me how to treat bunions and hangnails and stuff. I’m not going to deal with that. But if there’s something that you can imagine that the press would ask the secretary about this issue and you put that in the chat, I’d be, I’ll take a look and see if I can answer it.

I’m not sure if that’s going to work because I’ve never done that before, but I’ll give it a try. Okay. So what I’ve heard is, is that there’s currently a measles outbreak, and I believe it’s Texas that they’re blaming on the unvaccinated Mennonite community. And children are getting sick. The unvaccinated children of the Mennonites. And the vaccine uptake for measles vaccine has gone down from what they hope to be at 98, 97% to something like 78%. And that is the fuel for this measles outbreak. And I think there’s some dispute, maybe one or possibly two children have allegedly died as a result of measles.

So that’s the claim that we’re confronted with. And so let’s just try to unpack that claim a little bit. The first thing, and as everybody knows, I like to start at the beginning and just ask the question, what is measles? So they say that measles is a childhood illness, meaning it’s an illness that happens in children. It’s caused by a measles virus, which is an RNA virus, and, and it causes a certain set of symptoms and it’s sometimes harmless and sometimes dangerous. And they give rates for the percentage of children who come down with measles who have complications like ear infections and pneumonia, and the rate that children who come down with measles allegedly die from the measles.

But the first thing is, is it true that measles is a specific clinical entity? Or to put it very simply, is there actually such a thing as measles? In other words, is there a specific disease called measles? Now, when I ask doctors and friends and other interested people give me a definition of measles, or as I’ll show you here if you ask the cdc, which supposedly is the definitive word on this. So exactly what is the definition of measles? So let’s take a look. Hopefully you’ll be able to see this. So this kit, this came right out of the.

I think this one was from the Johns Hopkins or Mayo Clinic website, but. But I think the other ones are from the cdc. But this one may be from the CDC as well. It’s one of the definitive sources. Sorry to be vague about this. So what is the case definition for case clarification? In other words, how do we know that a person has measles as opposed to some other illness? So first we have the clinical description. An acute illness characterized by generalized maculopapular. That just means red and bumpy rash that lasts more than three days and the temperature is greater than 101 or 38.3.

And you have cough coryza, which is basically runny nose or conjunctivitis, inflammation of the eyes in the absence of a more likely diagnosis, an illness that meets the clinical description with no epidemiological linkage to a laboratory confirmed measles case, non contributory or no measles laboratory testing. So then they say that confirmed you have to isolate the measles virus from a specimen. You have specific nucleic acids, that’s a PCR test. You have IGG seroconversion or a significant rise in measles, immunoglobulin G antibody. Those are molecular diagnostic tests claiming that the antibodies confirm that it’s measles or a positive serological test with immunoglobulin M antibody.

So that’s another molecular diagnostic test. So those are how you know. So let’s just start with the clinical description. In other words, you’re looking at a child and you say if the child has a rash, that’s over a lot of their body and a temperature and a cough and a cold, mucus and eye inflammation, that’s measles. And then you confirm it with the molecular diagnostic tests or virology experiments. So let’s just stick with the clinical description first, then compare that with a similar disease called roseola. And here we have a high fever ranging from 103 to 105.

A rash may develop all over the child’s body. And you have cough, runny nose and pink eye as well as some other things, swollen lymph nodes, vomiting, diarrhea, et cetera. And then you have a description of the rash. So basically these are identical. Cough, runny Nose, runny eyes, high temperature, generalized rash, cough, runny nose, runny eyes, pink eyes, generalized rash and fever over 101. What about the illness called 5th’s disease? So they say it’s caused by a parvovirus, has no symptoms or mild, although you can have, when people get this infection, you can have a fever, you can have a cough, you can have rashes all over your body and doesn’t say it, but you can also have conjunctivitis.

So the rash has a certain characteristic which is slightly different. And you could put maybe five or six or seven or maybe other syndromes so called that children get that all have basically identical symptoms. The point that I’m making here is, and this has been verified many times with studies that if you show a child to a range of experienced pediatricians, they will not come to an agreement on who has measles and who has some other, quote, viral caused disease. And so there is no way to make any a definitive diagnosis based on the symptoms. And in fact, I don’t have this to pull up, but the CDC says as much that you cannot make a diagnosis based on the clinical description.

All you can do is describe what happens and say this may be measles, or it could be any number of seven to ten other childhood illnesses which are indistinguishable from what we’re calling measles. So what this means is there is no way to tell by looking at a child whether they have measles or not. That is the first and most important thing I want to get across. This cannot be a clinical diagnosis. And in fact, the CDC specifically says as much. There is no definitive way to diagnose measles by just an examination or an inspection of the child.

So that’s the first thing. And I want you to keep that in mind as we’re going through this. So in order to, as they say, confirm that this is measles and not something else, you need to have either isolate the measles virus or find pieces of the genome of the measles virus or have antibodies to the measles virus. Now let’s talk about these molecular detection methods. And the first thing is for a moment here, I’m going to ignore the fact that the measles virus has never been isolated based on the actual definition of, of isolation, which is to separate one thing from all other things that has never been done.

And in fact, the early studies done by enders and there’s 21 other studies by that this guy can’t remember his Name found that have disproven the isolation with cell culture techniques as being a valid technique for the detection or isolation of a virus. Even Ender said that he got the same result whether he added something from a measles patient or added nothing to the cell culture. So that has been disproven as a way to isolate the measles virus. But again, let’s forget about that for a minute and say what is the requirement for having any of these as being a valid test? And this is also something that I’ve talked about, but it’s important to go over it.

In order for there to be a valid medical test for a diagnosis, in other words, I can use this test to diagnose a certain condition. When the test is a surrogate test and I’ll explain what that means in a minute, it has to be compared to a so called gold standard, meaning a situation where you know with 100% certainty what the real diagnosis is. And once you can compare your surrogate test to the gold standard, you can find out the false positive and the false negative rate. But if you don’t have a gold standard 100% validated test, you can never find the false positive or negative rate and therefore it can never be a valid test.

Let me give you an example to make that very clear. With pregnancy, you can take 100 women who you know are pregnant. You could even wait and see if the baby comes out and then a certain time. Or you could see the hands and feet and head on an ultrasound at say four months or six months or so. And then you could do a molecular detection test, like a test for certain hormone levels or immunoglobulin levels or whatever you want. And then you can compare the two and see how often they match. If 99 out of 100 of those women, the molecular detection test is positive, then you know you have a test with a 1% false negative rate.

Then you can safely and accurately use that test and you can tell people that one out of 100 times I’m going to tell you you’re not pregnant, when in fact you are. But 99% of the time, if this says you’re pregnant, if you can reproduce that result, then you can rest assured that in fact you are pregnant. Now, at the same time, you have to do a false positive assessment, which means you take 100 men or postmenopausal women, but let’s say 100 men do the same test and if three of them are positive, then you know you have a false a 3% false positive rate.

And then you can tell people I did this test and 3% of the time it says you’re pregnant, but you actually can’t possibly be because a man can’t be pregnant. But that’s what we found out. And so then you can use the test in a clinical setting. So here the question that you would have to ask is what is the test that gives you 100% certainty that you’re dealing with a case of measles? Think about that for a minute. We already know that a generalized rash and a temperature and a cough and a runny nose and red eyes are entirely nonspecific and have been proven to not be able to diagnose for sure that somebody has measles.

There is no epidemiological link to a lab confirmed measles case. That is circular reasoning because if the lab can’t confirm that there’s measles, a epidemiological link is meaningless and non contributory or no measles, laboratory testing just means that you’re back to the clinical description which we know cannot tell you whether you have measles or roseola or fifth disease or six or seven other so called conditions. Therefore there is no way to get a false positive or a false negative rate on any of these molecular detection techniques. And again, for a minute I’m, or for now I’m assuming there even is a virus, which we know actually that there isn’t.

And I’m not going to get into that if people want to hear that. I’ve done that talk in the Baileys and Andy and Christine and many people have gone through the evidence, the lack of evidence for a measles virus. But even on their terms, this cannot be a valid test for the detection of a specific disease because there’s no gold standard with which to compare it to, to be able to say that you know the error rate. And a test without an error rate is a unscientific assessment which has no validity at all and should never be used.

And whenever, if you think about it, when you’re told, oh, I went to the doctor and he did an antibody test and he said I had measles, how do you know that you actually had measles? Since before these molecular detection tests, the only way that anybody said you had measles was based on the clinical description, which then they turn around and say that cannot be a specific diagnosis. So in other words, these molecular detection tests are not valid tests. They can’t tell you who has measles and that Means the bottom line is we have no idea who has, quote, measles or even whether measles is a specific illness.

Because if there’s no virus, which there isn’t, then there’s no specific clinical entity. And this is just a non specific process that children go through that has a variety of different permutations, none of which give you a specific illness called measles. Now this is important, let me get out of this for a second because when you see things like this, which on the one hand is very convincing, that the measles vaccine introduced in the United States in 1963 did nothing to change the death rate, since the death rate was already essentially zero. So anybody who says that the measles vaccine was responsible for decreasing the death rate is basically lying or doesn’t know the actual source of the data from the vital statistics of the United States.

But furthermore, I would just ask you to ask yourself how before the molecular detection techniques were available in say 1960 or so, how did we know any of these people actually had measles? We just heard from, from the CDC and from authoritative sources that a clinical assessment cannot distinguish measles from many other diseases. That’s their words. So how do we know that these actually were measles cases? How do we know that the vaccine decreased the number of measles cases since we have no way to assess before they have molecular detection techniques on their own terms who had measles and who didn’t.

And then when you add in the idea that we know that the molecular detection techniques are not valid tests because there’s no gold standard with which allows them to get an error rate. So we have no idea how often they’re right or not right, meaning it’s not a test that’s actually usable. We have no idea what the relationship of a measles vaccine to any illness is at all, or the death rate of any illness. But again, even on their own terms, that so called measles vaccine did nothing to change the incidence of so called measles. And on the other side you see the same thing.

So it wasn’t just the United States. The measles vaccine in England and Wales introduced in 1968, there was already a 99.8% decrease in the death rate from measles, even though they run into the same problem. How did they know in 1838 or 1843 or 1903 that it was measles and not roseola 5th’s disease or six or seven other rashes that children get all of which have different names, all of which are diagnosed, sort of in vogue at the time. Or somebody says they have measles and then if you’re around them, then the next person must have measles.

There is no definitive way to say that at all. So bottom line here, as is obvious, I think, is that there is no definitive diagnosis of measles. When you add that no definitive test for measles, there is no evidence that such a syndrome actually exists. There is no evidence that a virus that causes measles has ever been isolated or found or purified. And the way of isolation started by Enders disproved that. They isolated it, the virus. Therefore, if you’ve never had the pure virus, how do you know that a piece of it, that is the genetic material actually came from the virus? You don’t.

And then how do you know that an antibody directed against the proteins of a virus that you never found are specific to that virus? And the answer is you can’t. And so for a number of reasons, all of the molecular detection tests are basically bogus. So that’s the science of this. It’s obvious and clear, easy to understand. Any normal person thinking about this will come to these same conclusions. So why does the CDC claim or the health department in Texas that this is an outbreak of measles? One reason is because according to the cdc, the way you assess an outbreak of children with a fever and rash and runny nose is if they’ve had a MMR or measles vaccine, then you don’t.

You automatically say they don’t have measles because they say the vaccine works. So the only people, only children that you do these tests on and these clinical assessments are children who are unvaccinated. And then some of them will probably test positive because it’s a non specific test of God knows what or some breakdown of your tissue. And so it becomes a disease of the unvaccinated because those are the only children that you test. And if that isn’t the definition of circuitous circular reasoning, I don’t know what is. You see, this is all based on the inability to understand logic and reasoning.

So in other words, to say that again, if you start by saying the only children we’re going to do a test on are children who are unvaccinated. And then, oh my God, it’s only in the unvaccinated that get it? Well, obviously, because those are the only children you test. So that’s nonsense. And that’s why these outbreaks are allowed to be claimed to be only confined to the unvaccinated because, wink, wink, those are the only children who get tested. Okay. And again, I wanted to point out that all the historical data on incidence and changing of the rates of measles is obviously bogus if we believe the CDC and say that before molecular detection tests, there was no way to accurately diagnose measles, so there was no way to know who had measles and who didn’t.

And therefore there’s no way to assess the change in the rate of measles over time because we don’t know who had it and who didn’t. So the bottom line then is this is a, essentially a fake diagnosis and, and it’s engineered to finger the unvaccinated because that’s the only children that they test. Therefore, it’s a scam essentially to, to blame the unvaccinated for some children getting sick. That’s essentially what we’re dealing with. I’ll just let me look at my notes here and see if there’s anything else that I wanted to say. And I think I got it all.

So finally then, so what would I do about it? First of all, I would challenge anybody who disagrees with anything I say to come up with and present to us an accurate diagnosis of this measles syndrome and how you validated that this case is measles and this isn’t. So that’s the first thing that I would request from anybody, infectious disease, people who dispute what I just said. The next thing is if you claim that these molecular detection tests actually accurately diagnose measles, I would ask you to show me a study that has, say, a thousand children that you claim has measles have measles, and on the basis of these tests prove that they in fact have measles.

Now, in order to do this, you need to have 1,000 children who also who have something like roseola or fifth disease or chickenpox, or 1,000 children with leukemia or cancer, and then it may be 1000 healthy children. And then show that all these different parameters, the antibodies, the PCR, the IgM, the IgG, those are the antibodies. And the clinical description and the epidemiology, all are unique and specific and accurately diagnosed that this is a case of measles. And so in order to do that, you have to do the same antibody tests on children with a whole different set of symptoms, a whole different children who are, well, children who have similar symptoms that you don’t think are measles, and then you’re going to have to be able to prove that all of these tests correlate with each other and prove without a shadow of a doubt that you are able to diagnose accurately a measles infection.

And I have not seen that study. I’m pretty sure that study doesn’t exist. That should have been the first thing that anybody would have demanded. And if our goal here is to follow the science, trust the science, do good science, then before I would accept this diagnosis or any of these tests as being valid, I need to see this study that you can say 100 children you say have measles and 100 children with rashes that you say aren’t measles. And the antibody test distinguishes them or the PCR distinguishes them. And you do that with healthy children, children with leukemia, and you prove that these tests are specific for something you call measles.

Until somebody comes up with that study. I don’t buy it. I don’t buy there’s a clinical syndrome that’s specific. And I don’t buy that any of these tests can accurately diagnose this. So that’s what I’m demanding. Not that your Aunt Hilda had measles and so then you got it or something like that. I don’t want stories like that. I want accurate science that proves, using valid logic and scientific method, that there is an entity called measles. It’s caused by an isolated, purified, characterized measles virus which by itself has been shown to reproduce these symptoms and that it can be accurately diagnosed with these molecular detection techniques.

And the reality is none of those things have ever been shown. So if we’re saying that we want to follow the science, let’s see the science, because I don’t see it. Now let me finish with what would I do? There’s some interesting historical information that children who are well cared for and well fed and particularly have adequate amount of fats, and some people would call that vitamin A. And I question even the existence of vitamin A and whether that’s actually the, the quote, active ingredient. Because if I, if I would admit that or claim that, then somebody might say to give somebody synthetic or some sort of vitamin with vitamin A in it, and I don’t think that’s a good idea at all.

What every child should have who’s, you know, has some sort of symptoms that what we call acute illness, they should be given a teaspoon of cod liver oil, probably like the Rosita brand, and a liberal amount of grass fed raw butter or similar sort of beef tallow or lard from pigs that were able to forage out in the sun. And that should be a great help in them overcoming the disease, the symptoms that they have. And if there’s more needed, I would go to a doctor or a practitioner who has studied the new biology principles and we can look at using a little bit more aggressive techniques to help children with the sort of detoxification process of an acute illness, using things like chlorine dioxide and liposomal vitamin C.

So those are some very simple things that pretty much anybody can do at home. And they should make it so nobody has any bad outcomes from this process that they’re going through. And so that would be an effective way to deal with it and we should be good. So I welcome anybody who questions this to send me those studies proving what the syndrome of measles is proving these molecular detection techniques are valid, including all the parameters that I mentioned, showing me what the gold standard is absent that I would say that I’m correct. There is no proven illness called measles.

There is no evidence of any virus causing this supposed illness. And the tests and evaluation techniques are clearly bogus and are essentially meant to finger the unvaccinated, to blame them, because again, those are the only people they’re testing. Okay, so that’s that. Let me take a look at the live stream and see if anybody has any questions about what I just said. I don’t see any questions or maybe I don’t know how to look for them, one of the two. But anyways, I think that should do it. I will look in the comments when we post this.

So if anybody has any questions, you can put them there or comments about this. As always, I read your comments. As always, I appreciate everybody’s interest in what I have to say. And as always, please write a review of the Common Sense Child Rearing book on Amazon and give it to all your friends. Thanks for listening and I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].

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