➡ The article discusses the challenges in identifying viruses through electron microscopy photographs, highlighting that it’s difficult to distinguish tissue breakdown from the virus itself. It also questions the consistency of virus appearance, using the swine flu virus as an example, which appears to change shape in different images. The article further criticizes the reliability of antibody tests for identifying viruses, stating that these tests may not be specific and could bind to various proteins. Lastly, it calls for more scientific studies to validate these methods of virus identification.

➡ The text discusses a claim that a measles outbreak was fabricated by health authorities in Oregon and Washington to influence legislation related to vaccines. The author also questions the circumstances surrounding the death of a six-year-old boy, allegedly from measles, suggesting that the child was already sick and was given a measles vaccine in the hospital, which could have worsened his condition. The author emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation to verify these claims and their potential implications on the vaccine agenda.

1➡ The speaker is questioning the circumstances around a child’s death from measles, suggesting it may be part of a larger agenda to promote vaccines. They encourage anyone involved to come forward with information, even if it implicates higher authorities. They also express skepticism about the concept of community immunity through vaccination and call for transparency and truth in the matter.

Okay, thanks everybody. Welcome to another Wednesday webinar. I’m always appreciative of people joining me and giving comments and just supporting what we’re doing here. So today is March 5, 2025 and just, just want to thank people for the people who’ve written reviews on Amazon for the new Common Sense child rearing book. And I hope there’ll be more coming. Hopefully everybody’s gotten their book and had a chance to look at it. The reviews help. So if you feel so inclined and inspired, I’d love to see your review. I read them all and it’s really interesting and helpful for me to do that.

I don’t think there’s anything else going on, so let’s get to it. This may be a little shorter than some. I think I’m only going to get to two of the three things I mentioned, but let’s get started. So the first one, just a little bit of an explanation. Why. Why more about virology. It’s because it’s pretty much the same thing over and over again. And this was prompted by somebody sending me and I don’t even remember who it was one of the rare times when a. I don’t think he’s a virologist. I think he’s a microbiologist and I think he has an interest in and aliens putting stuff in our genome or something like that.

I’m not sure because I didn’t really look into it. Anyways, microbiologist, virologist, something like that, who has weighed in on the virus existence model. And again, the thing that’s interesting about that to me is we don’t usually get responses. You know, the, the strategy that seems to be adopted in order in dealing with this issue is to ignore it. And that’s not a bad strategy on their part because once you start engaging with it, you start looking kind of stupid and you realize you don’t have any logical argument or any way of approaching this subject that doesn’t rely on logical fallacies and assumptions, etc.

But so they mostly just ignore it. Which as I say, is probably what I would do in their situation too. Although I can hardly imagine being in that situation and thinking that the best strategy of my life’s work was to ignore anything that criticized it. That seems weird to me. But anyways, if you’re in that situation, that may be their strategy. So anyways, this one guy, he. He decided to weigh in and I thought it would be interesting to look at what he says just, just to hear how this is approached by the quote, other side.

And I think that’s a little bit, it’s enlightening to help us understand the real issues here. And then I have a few things that I would like to ask him to provide for us in order to substantiate his claim. Now I did hear, and I think I confirmed this that sometimes when I show things, when I share my screen, it like doesn’t work. So you didn’t see the picture of, of Mitch McConnell and the turtle and Klaus Schwab and I hope that that works this time. I don’t know why that happened. I don’t know what would make the share screen go off most of the time it doesn’t matter because I’ll probably, I’ll read it anyways.

But there’s a few pictures here that I’d like to show. So I’m hoping this works and I don’t know what else I can do about it. So I’m going to push share and then I’m going to push share again and then I’m going to bring this up. Hopefully you can see my screen and here’s the screen and the top part. Forget about the bottom part for now. Was somebody who initiated a personal email conversation with William Brown, a non mainstream microbiologist who unequivocally stated that viruses are real. He works with them in the lab. He can distinguish their structure from the structure of exosomes and explains that the whole viral RNA sequences are completely unique compared to humans DNA sequences.

He also claims that we might have alien genetic sequences in our own DNA. He also works with Nassim Haramein. I think that’s how you say it on the Resonance project challenging mainstream physics. So not a mainstream microbiologist. Here’s a snippet of our email conversation. So that’s the background and again I don’t know anything else about this guy. So here what does he have to say? As best I know this is a unedited work. His own words. If they’re not, I, I guess I would apologize but as far as I know that’s what this is. William, the statement that nobody has ever purified and isolated a virus is 100% absolutely incorrect.

Correct. Just Google virus electromicrograph. You can see hundreds of pictures of isolated viruses. How do you think pictures are taken of viruses if they are not first isolated and purified? Microbiologists do not have some code word for isolation and purification. Where they say that, where they say that but mean something different. Okay, so there’s the first thing is they have pictures and how could you possibly get a picture if you didn’t isolate it and purified? And they apparently mean isolation just like everybody else means purification, which means separation of one thing from everything else. So all you have is a virus.

So now this is the important part. When I want to isolate a virus, I get cells that are infected, lyse the cells, purify the lysate and isolate the virus directly with an antibody binding assay. Isolation of infectious HIV 1. The result is a pure isolate of a virus. I can then study the proteins that make up the viral capsule, the RNA or DNA sequence within. And the important point is that these proteins that make up the viral capsule, the DNA or RNA within, are not a part of the human proteome or genome. Okay, so that’s how you do it.

Now let’s go back here. And I actually ran this by a 12 year old and he had an interesting thing to say. When I want to isolate a virus, I get cells that are infected. So the first question, and the 12 year old said this to me, how does he know they’re infected, presumably with a virus? Because if you say, well these are in cells that are infected with a virus, then the argument or the discussion or the contention is already finished because you’ve already apparently found the virus, because you found cells, the cells are infected, you say, and therefore the, the question is finished, you’ve already found the virus.

By definition, if the cells are infected, then you’ve, they must be infected, I guess with a virus. They don’t mean infected with a bacteria or fungus. So the cells are infected with a virus, so that becomes the assumption and then everything else follows. Then you lyse the cells, break the cells, purify the broken cells and then you make, then you bind it with an antibody and then you take a picture and then you study the proteins. But it all comes back to the claim that the cell was infected with a virus. So I would claim that this is similar in reasoning.

This is called, I think, affirming the consequent. Although I’m not good at naming logical fallacies, but I think that’s what you call once you assume there’s a virus, then obviously you can prove anything. It’s sort of like you go, how do you prove there’s a unicorn? Well first obviously you go to the Unicorn park and then you look for pieces of hair and pieces of hooves and teeth, etc. And of course there’s horses and pigs and sheep, all that all are running around this Unicorn Park. Those you can See, but you can’t see the unicorns. So if somebody, if you ask the person how do you know there’s unicorns there he here you say, well look, there’s a sign and it says it’s a unicorn park.

So there must be a unicorn in the park. And that’s why I can find these pieces of the unicorn. And if you keep coming back to yeah, but how do you know that the Unicorn park is accurate, that there is in fact a unicorn here? That is exactly the question. And the reason is, is because if you start looking into, well, what about these pictures he’s talking about? So for instance, Here’s a picture SARS cov2. And if William happens to watch this, I would, I would love to hear his answer. So this is a picture from the medical literature of either SARS CoV2 with the spike protein and all the rest of it in the right size, or it’s a picture of a broken down kidney biopsy from before 2000.

So if you could please tell us which one this is. Let me show you another one. So that’s number one, here’s number two. Now if you can just remember the other one I didn’t put, can’t put them side to side or at least I don’t know how. So this is the same size, same spiky things, same proteins that are stained. Everything is absolutely identical. But I can guarantee you one of these came from, from allegedly SARS CoV2 and the other one came from a kidney biopsy from before 2000. And so William, please tell us which one is which, because if you can’t, and it’s obvious that you can’t, then the problem is these electron photographs are not able to distinguish breakdown of the tissue from this alleged virus.

So when you use that as the argument that look, we can see the picture, then it turns out you cannot distinguish. And there’s at least 20 articles in the medical literature that go through this in great detail with pretty much every virus there is showing that you cannot distinguish the breakdown of the tissue from what you’re calling the virus. And here’s another way of looking at that from a slightly different point of view. And again, I hope you can see these pictures. So these are a series of electron microscopy photographs. So exactly these photographs that you’re talking about of the alleged swine flu virus.

Now the important point here is a virus is a specific entity. In other words, every SARS CoV2 should be identical and every swine flu virus should be identical. They should look the Same, have the same proteins, have the same so called genetic material. Everything about them should be the same because they’re thought of as being clones to each other. So these are the shapes and the morphology of one of the early pictures of the swine flu virus. And then we have another picture of the swine flu virus, the one in the top. And I got this base just, just looking at, through the medical literature for photographs of the swine flu virus.

And here you see this circular shape and then you see the proteins allegedly coming off the exterior, etc. So the morphology looks like that. And then you go on a few years later and you see now the swine flu virus has somehow mutated into a rod shaped thing that looks like this. Now it’s got some of the other ones there. But how does that happen? How is this the same virus? How do you know this is the swine flu virus? And then later it actually changes its form again and there you see the circles with the empty interior.

And so this is like a shape shifter, this swine flu virus. And then you can see this one, although truth be told, this is just the simple a micrograph picture in a light microscope of snot. And you see things that look identical to viruses, but obviously they’re bigger. So that it’s not really fair. That was more of a joke. So this is another way of saying that cannot be the case, that this is a single morphologically identical virus. Now as far as the pictures, in order to claim this is based scientifically, what you would have to do is do a study or show us a study.

Obviously this should have been done because this is the way any scientist would do this. So you take 100 so called infected cells and compare them to 100 normal cells, 100 cancer cells, 100 cells that have mixed, come from people with mixed problems. Do the same procedure, lyse them, stain them, do everything the same. Show us the photographs of the entire field so you’re not just cherry picking one picture compared to another one. And then show us it blindly how you can tell this one is from chickenpox and this one is a swine flu virus and this is SARS COV2.

And let’s see the whole fields and let’s see a published study that has verified that when you claim in the beginning that there’s an infected cell, you actually can substantiate that. Okay, so I’ll be waiting for that study. And maybe you can show us where they did that, because obviously they would have done that otherwise you wouldn’t be making that claim. Now, the second claim is you can purify it by by attaching it to antibodies that bind to these viruses. Now, this is based on the claim which we’ve talked about here many times, that antibodies have a specificity and that they will only attach to a certain protein or virus.

If that’s not true, in other words, if antibodies allegedly are nonspecific and will bind to many things, including human cellular proteins or other proteins, then you cannot use that to claim that anything has been isolated or purified. That should be obvious. In other words, if thing X only binds to thing Y and you can prove that, then obviously if you see binding that means you have thing Y. But if you can demonstrate that thing X binds to thing Y and Z and A and B depending on a whole lot of different parameters, then you can’t use that to claim purification or isolation of anything.

And that’s exactly what he’s claiming here. So here it’s interesting then to look at even what the CDC themselves says about the specificity of antibodies. So antibody tests were discussed as early as April 2020. In May 2020, they’re talking about SARS CoV2 experts acknowledge that antibody tests may not mean much at all due to too many unknowns, both about the accuracy of the antibody tests that are available and about the nature of the virus itself. In May 2021, the FDA explicitly warned the public not to use authorized SARS CoV2 antibody tests to evaluate a person’s level of immunity or protection from COVID at any time, especially after the person received a Covid vaccination.

The agency stated that more research is needed to understand the meaning of a positive or negative antibody test beyond the presence or absence of antibodies. In other words, they don’t know what this test means because they don’t have a gold standard. So there’s no way to get a false positive or negative rate. And there’s no way to know whether the antibody is specific to anything because they don’t have never isolated the virus. As recently as September 2024, the CDC reaffirmed that antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess a person’s protection against SARS CoV2 or severe COVID19 following vaccination or to assess the need for vaccination.

So here’s another one along those same lines, also from the cdc. Here you can see the reference provided the antibody tests are adequately validated to detect antibodies to specific proteins or antigens. Although an antibody test can employ specific antigens, antibodies developed in response to different Proteins might cross react, that is, the test might detect antibodies they are not intended to detect and therefore might not provide sufficient information on the presence of antigen specific antibodies. In other words, we can’t verify that these antibodies are specific for an antigen or for a virus. For antibody tests with FDA eua, that’s emergency use authorization.

It has not been established whether the antigens employed by the tests specifically detect only antibodies against these antigens and not other antigens. As I said, in other words, they have no idea about the specificity of these antibodies. And these are the tests that are used that for telling you whether you have this virus, whether you have this disease, and this guy is telling us are specific. And again, I have a challenge which is show us a study where this claim of specificity has been validated. So what you would have to do is take your so called virally infected cell and then use the antibody, and then use the same antibody, everything the same, all the procedures are same with cancer cells, normal cells, different so called viral infections, different so called bacterial infections, different conditions, and show us that this antibody is absolutely specific.

Because if you can’t, that means you isolated or purified nothing and you have no idea whether you’re dealing with the virus or not, because that’s how you find it. So I will be anxiously awaiting for you to provide me with those studies which as we have learned, never happens. And the reason is because the studies don’t exist, because virology is not a science and the whole thing is basically make believe. Okay? So I hope that’s clear, and I hope it’s clear what I’m asking for. And it should be easily easy to find because these are the basic requirements of substantiating your claim.

Okay? So I think that’s all I need to say about that. I just want to finish by pointing out again, the reason I went through this exercise is mostly because of the first thing. When I want to isolate a virus, I get cells that are infected. That’s the kind of logical fallacy mistake that you would not expect a high school student to make. Because obviously if you assume that the cell is infected, presumably with the virus, then the argument is over. Just like if your reason for saying that there are unicorns in this park is because there’s a sign that says it’s a unicorn park.

Whether you see them or not or have any actual evidence that there is a unicorn here, makes no difference because you’ve already assumed that that’s the case. And we hear this over and over and over again, which Is why before anybody does science, they should probably learn logic first. Okay, so let’s change subjects here. And I think this is a very important thing to deal with because when you, when, when I present what I’m going to present, I, I think even though this is an extremely troubling and tragic situation, there is no way around that what I’m about to say.

And so I don’t want to gloss over that. And you know, I, anybody who’s, who’s a parent or has anything to do with children, you know, if a child dies, it’s, it’s just something you, you can hardly even imagine as a parent, a grand grandparent or a friend of somebody. You know, just having a child die is just, it’s beyond the pale. So I just want to say that first. But the circumstances of this situation with the measles child who died, apparently a six year old boy, in some ways also presents an opportunity to have this never happen again.

And I’m, I am not here to say somehow that makes what happened better, because it doesn’t. And that would be ridiculous to even think that. But you know, here we are and what happened, happens. And so let’s try to unpack what actually happened. Now I want to be very clear that I, what I’m about to say I’m getting from sources and I have not been able to verify this myself. And so I would say it’s possible that, that I could be incorrect about this. But I would say that it’s a serious enough situation and a serious enough and important enough claim that I think the claim needs to be put out there because it is out there.

It’s not just me who, who found this. Obviously I didn’t find this so that it needs to be put to rest one way or another. So what am I talking about here? So I have heard and again, I’m not saying this is verified or 100% accurate. I’m saying that it is something that has come up which needs to be addressed so that we all know without any shadow of a doubt whether what this story that I’m about to relate is actually true. So given what I said last time, that there is no evidence for a specific disease called measles that should be obvious.

There is no evidence for any virus called a measles virus. This is a non specific illness that happens in various situations in children where they get affected in some ways, either, you know, nutritionally or some sort of toxic exposure or whatever, something happens and then they go through a sort of a detoxification process. That’s not important right now. What’s important is we already know that there is no illness called measles that’s specific. And nobody has ever demonstrated that there’s a measles virus. But this claim seems to be hugely important to the whole virus and vaccine scam.

So the first thing I want to go is this. This was a. Again, something I received, and I haven’t verified this, but it’s certainly something that needs to be investigated. So this is a former Oregon Health Authority employee. When both Oregon and Washington health authorities created a fake measles outbreak in 2019. This was the same time they were considering legislation to whether to mandate vaccines or keep going with religious exemptions or all that stuff. So let me just read what he says. I was a fiscal analyst for the Immunization Programs Division of the Oregon Health Authorities working on floor four of the Portland State Office Building under Mimi Luther.

You should query the vaccine adverse reaction data in a public records request from a system called Alert IIS or 2S. Also, the 2019 measles outbreak in Vancouver, Portland, was fake. They made it up in order to change Washington’s law. I know because when I was writing SQL queries queries on the Sentinel database, I tried testing it against that database and nothing came up. So I asked Rex Larson why that was, and he froze. I got into the IMM drive, that’s what you should ask for, and found memos that they were contracting with a PR firm to promote the fake outbreak in order to pass the bill.

The way OHA does the dirty work is by instructing Medicaid’s COOs to make, quote, grants that will be outside the public records law. Also, this is all on background. Oregon has a journalist shield law, and I consider substack journalism. I’ve never told anybody this stuff before. So this is an extraordinary claim, essentially. And I, I don’t know what he’s talking about with the IMM drives and, and this kind of Sentinel database, but I know some people have looked into this and found that he was, in fact working there and these people were, in fact working there.

And my basic point is he’s claiming that the Oregon health authorities faked a measles outbreak in order to have something happen, which was probably to pass a certain law. Now, that is a devastating claim. And I can tell you that if I was HHS secretary or in the FBI or something, one of those positions, I would take this claim very seriously, especially HHS secretary, and I would find out without any shadow of a Doubt whether this is true or not. And if it was, I would make it known and I would get the people who perpetrated this fraud to publicly admit what they did and what they knew about it, so that everybody in our country and the world could know that this is what happened and that some people, and hopefully we would even get the names and the positions of the people who perpetrated this fraud, would actually fake a measles outbreak in order to accomplish a legislative victory having to do with vaccines.

That is an extraordinary claim and it needs to be put to rest one way or another. Not swept under the table, not ignored. This is a extraordinary claim because it also. Let me get out of this for a minute. It also goes along with the claim. And again, I’m going to say it for the third time. I haven’t verified this myself, but it needs to be verified. This claim needs to be taken seriously because of the extraordinary nature of the claim and how this could be literally a turning point for the whole vaccine agenda. So the claim is, and there’s people who are saying they’re actually hearing this from insiders, that the child, which apparently was a six year old boy who died in Texas allegedly of measles, first of all, had a number of health conditions involving his respiratory system before this whole thing and had apparently been in hospitals and had breathing treatments, et cetera, before this.

So then he gets sick and has a high fever and difficulty breathing and pneumonia. And while in the hospital, two things happened. One, they gave him a measles vaccine and two, in spite of repeated requests by the parents to give him a breathing treatment, they refused and he never received the breathing treatment again. I would think that these records need to be found. Every possible person from the doctors and the nurses and the janitors and the cleanup crew and the pharmacists and the administrators, all the records need to be found. All these people should be questioned to see whether in fact this is true.

The reason is because first of all, every doctor knows that if you have somebody allegedly with measles, you don’t give them a measles vaccine once they already have measles or any of these so called viral diseases. Now, I’m just talking about from a conventional, orthodox point of view, not only does it do no good, but is clearly dangerous. So why would they do that? Well, one of the things that happens, and this is similar to some of the studies that have they did with ferrets, they would take ferrets and they would anesthetize them or, you know, intubate them, put a breathing tube down them, and then put cell culture debris, including certain sequences, into their lungs.

And then, of course, they would get a cough and they would feel sick and not do as well, although they didn’t actually do as poorly as they thought. But what, what would happen then is if you tested them a few days later, by some, quote, miracle, you would be able to find the sequences, the ones that you put in there, and then you would be able to diagnose them with a SARS CoV2 infection, because you found the SARS CoV2 sequences with PCR, which, by the way, you happen to put down the ferret’s throat two days before.

So that’s obviously nonsense. But here, if you inject a child with sequences allegedly from a measles virus and then you test them a few days later, you will be able to claim that, yes, the PCR testing and the antibody testing shows that, in fact, they have measles because you put the sequences in, that would guarantee a positive test. So in other words, you take a sick child who you’re not supposed to put this toxic brew into them because it can’t possibly do any good and has been known to do lots of harm, and then you harm this child by poisoning them when they’re already sick, and then for some reason think that you shouldn’t give them breathing treatments.

And then, unfortunately and tragically, the child didn’t make it. And then you’re able to claim that a child died from measles and that may have been what happened. Now, again, for the fourth time, I can’t prove that that happened, but this would be an extraordinarily cruel and evil thing to have done to the point where, again, if I was involved in any way, I would absolutely question, subpoena, whatever I needed to do to find the records, I wouldn’t believe anybody. I would. Because maybe they didn’t write it in the record or maybe they scrubbed it from the record.

I would do everything possible to find somebody who could verify or not that this is what happened or not. And then I would make that public because it certainly is something that’s circulating around and that people are going to be aware of now, if it didn’t happen, I would be able to say I have incontrovertible evidence that this didn’t happen and that the child simply died of measles and they did everything they could and there was nothing nefarious or untoward about it except the usual nefarious and untoward things. But if in Fact, what this claim is, is in fact what happened.

I can only imagine what it would be like for people to hear that this is what the powers that be who have this vaccine agenda, who want to inject our children with measles, the lengths that they’re willing to go in order to substantiate this claim and carry out their agenda. I would have these doctor who ordered this, or the nurse who gave it, or the orderly who is there literally publicly say, maybe I would shield their identity in affidavits, swear that this is what happened and let everybody see for themselves what these, the people who are pushing these, this viral theory and this vaccine agenda are the lengths that they’re willing to do go, including what they did to this child in order to, to push their agenda.

And that’s how I would play this. Now, just to say I would be. If you’re one of the people who were involved in this, either a doctor or a nurse or an orderly or an administrator, and you happen to see it, I would be very careful here and go to the right people to, to expl. To start the process rolling so that you can explain to the world what you did, what you know, and who ordered you to do it or who suggested you to do it. Because I doubt that this was the work of just some rogue nurse or doctor.

And that brings us to the. The final thing, which is can we hope that this will be something that Kennedy will share, will investigate. And here is what he said about the current measles alleged outbreak. He recognizes the serious impact and that he supported the Texas Department of Health by sending them 2000 MMR doses. He’s doing lab support so they can better track the virus. He’s communicating with health officials so to see what their response is. He’s providing communication materials. He’s giving them some synthetic vitamin A and this is a top priority. And they’re. They’re on it.

This sounds like something exactly that any of the pro vaccine people, virus people would say. And then there was another one, which was another thing that came from the secretary. Vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity, protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated due to medical reasons. If this is what we call following the science, I would love to see the actual science where we know a, that measles is a specific entity, that it provides community immunity and that it protects the people who are, quote, unable to be vaccinated.

We’ve been hearing this stuff for years now. It seems to be the same old thing. So I would be very cautious about if you’re a whistleblower and you have inside knowledge as to what happened about who you expect to follow this up, follow up with this. And frankly, I don’t know who you should go to. I have a lot of thoughts, but hopefully there can be some way that we can really get to the truth of what happened and that we can use this very tragic and unfortunate episode to show the world just to the extent that people who are pushing this viral theory, agenda, vaccine agenda, are willing to go to make their case.

And it’s really evil, awful. And I hope we can use this so that this never has to happen again. So I think I’m going to stop there. And again, I, if anybody has any information about this, I’d love to hear it. And I hope that we get to the bottom of this story very soon because this is story that cannot be swept under the rug. We need absolute facts that we can trust because this could be a game changer for people to realize just what we’re up against here and just the real nature of this so called measles outbreak.

So again, thanks everybody for listening and I will see you next week and let’s see if we can get to the bottom of this. All right, take care everybody.
[tr:tra].

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