➡ The text discusses a debate about the existence of a virus and the methods used to prove it. It criticizes the use of PCR testing and genome sequencing without negative controls, which are essential for validating results. The author suggests that the lack of direct evidence and the absence of negative controls in the testing process indicate that the virus may not exist. The text also mentions a challenge to provide evidence of an infectious biological pathogen, which was ignored, further fueling the author’s skepticism.

➡ The article criticizes the scientific method used in virus detection, arguing that it lacks proper controls and may not be reliable. It suggests that the current process could be misleading, although it’s unclear if this is intentional. The author emphasizes the importance of negative controls in scientific experiments and questions the validity of the current methods used in virus detection. The article ends by stating that major scientific establishments in Europe have admitted to not conducting proper scientific experiments.

Okay, welcome, everybody. Today is Wednesday, June 4, 2025, and welcome to another Wednesday webinar. And before I get started, I want to do a mic check. I also, unfortunately, have a bit of an unstable Internet today. I’m not sure why that is, and I’m hoping that that doesn’t affect things. But if it, if things go blank, that’s probably why. So I’m going to go look at the chat now and if people could tell me whether they can hear me and whether it sounds okay. So let me go to the chat. So it sounds like it’s everything is fine.

So I’m going to just keep watch on my monitor here and hope for the best. And again, I had a little Internet issues, and I don’t know whether that’s going to come back. If it does, it’ll probably go blank, and I don’t know why that is, but I’ll probably then restart the computer, which is the only way I know how to get it back. And so, yeah, we’ll just hope that doesn’t happen. Okay, I just have a few things here to go over and then a few questions. So it’ll be just a bunch of short things.

The first is I, I actually when we read the letter from the three, the two doctors and the secretary last week, and one of the doctors, of course, was Dr. Malarkey. And I hadn’t realized, because I hadn’t looked up the definition of malarkey just how accurate and profound that word is to describe what they were saying. So he here is the definition, according to somebody, of malarkey. So malarkey is exaggerated or foolish talk, usually intended to deceive. That’s interesting. Nonsense or rubbish, empty rhetoric or insincere or exaggerated talk. And this is from the American Heritage Dictionary of English Language, fifth edition.

And I can’t think of anything more appropriate to what that paper was about that was pure malarkey. And amazingly, that’s, well, my name for one of the doctors who I suspect wrote that. Okay, so we’re probably going to hear a lot of other malarkey today. And in fact, I’m coming to the idea that malarkey is pretty much the best word to describe most of medicine, science, and particularly virology. So next topic was the ostrich situation in Canada. And even though I’m sure most of you are pretty done with that, and I’m pretty done with it, I happen to read a article in the New York Times last week.

Now, just to say I typically don’t get or read The New York Times, but probably about once a month I do mostly to get some comedic material because it’s always really good at that. They’re probably the best source of true comedy that I can think of. And so true to form, there was an article which you can see here, Canada wants to kill 400 ostriches exposed to the avian flu. Kennedy wants to save them. And then there’s a picture of a sign on an ostrich farm in Edgewood, British Columbia, pleading for the lives of 400 birds.

The sentiment is shared by, among others, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. President Trump’s health secretary. And they go on to describe the situation that everybody knows and that Dr. Oz, who oversees Medicare and Medicaid, offered to relocate the doomed birds to his 900 acre ranch in Florida. And another businessman whose name I can’t pronounce, who owns a New York City radio station, made a plea to save the birds on his radio program demanding truth, justice and the American way for the ostriches up in British Columbia. So I think the American way includes being injected every two weeks for an imaginary virus.

But the most important and valuable paragraph, two paragraphs that I got from this article, I will read you. And it just is such a poignant and dramatic demonstration of the thinking process, or rather the anti thinking process or the unthinking process that is the American media, American newspapers, American science, not just American, and the American doctors. And I’ll explain in a minute. So here’s the paragraphs. In December, a young ostrich at Universal Ostrich Farms fell ill with symptoms that looked like pneumonia. But testing revealed it was the H5N1 virus. And just over a month later, 69 of the 468 ostriches on the farm had died.

I had heard 68, but let’s go with 69 of the 468 ostricches died. Tests by officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency confirmed that a few of the birds had died of the same virus. I had heard the number was they had two positive tests for H5N1, otherwise known as avian flu, avian bird flu virus. Now, let’s think about this. And so we’re using their own logic, their own science. So they get this bunch of ostriches living on a farm and 69 of them died for unexpectedly. In other words, they weren’t like old and you expect them to die and nothing obvious happened.

And they do their test, which is the test that they rely on to see whether this is bird flu virus or not. Because they already told us you can’t base it on the symptoms. So it’s all based on a test. And two of the 69 or 68 ostriches that died test positive for this bird flu. In other words, 66 or 67 died of something else. And yet the entire story is that bird flu virus and bird flu was found in these ostriches, and we got to kill all the rest of the ostriches because they’re all going to get bird flu or they’re going to spread it to all of the rest of us, and we’re all going to die from bird flu because of these ostriches.

And there’s no mention in this article of what happened to the other 66. I mean, apparently they didn’t have bird flu. Apparently they tested negative for the virus. I heard the number two tested positive. That may not be the exact number, but they say only a few. And that was the number that I heard, which on their own terms means 66 died of something else. Now, if that was the case, in a normal situation, the story would have to be, first of all, that bird flu diagnosis is probably incidental, because if 66 out of 68 died testing negative for bird flu, one would have to be very interested in what they died of, because it obviously wasn’t bird flu.

So what did they die of? And then you would actually assume that the other two actually died of the same thing, so didn’t die of bird flu in the first place. And so none of them died from bird flu on their own terms. And there’s no investigation, no talk, no communication, nothing, just to figure out why these ostriches died. And somehow the leaders of the health field in the United States are not able to dissect that story and say publicly, this obviously means they didn’t die of bird flu. So this story is not true. The whole thing is ridiculous.

And. And let’s see if we can find out if it’s even of interest why they died. And if they asked me, I would say the first place I would look is the conditions they’re living and the injections that they’re getting every two weeks, because my guess is that’s why they’re dying. But nobody asked that question. And you can see why medicine and science is in the state it’s in, and the new regime that supposedly basing everything on gold standard science somehow doesn’t have it in them to even ask that question, to question the narrative even a tiny bit.

There’s nothing else you need to know. Okay, that was the second topic, the third topic, this I just heard today. And this is a message and an update to the. I’ve talked about this a few times. There’s this, I think Dutch veterinarian named me something or other. And I can’t, I can’t say his last name. I don’t know what his last name is. And he writes some substack and he’s busy criticizing the no virus position and apparently wrote this substack proving that some guy named loeffler in the 1800s proved there were viruses. And nobody can refute that.

It’s an irrefutable proof. So then I saw this. But I wanted to just say that one of the, you know, things that all doctors, we’re all meant to be compassionate and really care for people and it doesn’t matter whether they’re critical or whatever they are. You still. So this, you know, in the, in that spirit, I thought I would particularly address this, what I’m about to say to Mrs. Meese. And I don’t even know if there is a Mrs. Meese. For all I know, there could be a Mr. Meese or he could be alone or a bachelor or something.

But if there is a Mrs. Meese. Because what I think is this is a very unfortunate situation because it sounds like Mises SIT has actually taken a turn for the worse and he’s entering what I would call the terminal SIT phase. I’m sure most of you remember SIT is an acronym for Syndrome of Insufficient Thinking. And when somebody enters the terminal phase of sit, you know, you can expect things like, you know, running around the neighborhood naked, talking and hollering and using a megaphone. Talk about things like aliens are coming and people are landing on the moon and stuff like that.

And so that may be in store and that may be what’s going to happen with me. So I hoping that you are prepared and are able to give me some help. And you know, there is no cure for terminal situation. There are some things that one can do to sort of help the situation or prevent the running around the neighborhood naked talking about alien stuff. For instance, there’s what’s called vitamin H, which otherwise is known as Haldol. It’s used a lot in, in hospitals and doctors use it to for people in this terminal stage. And I think that because he’s a vet, the dose should be one held all tablet for every animal that he vaccinated in his career.

So, you know, that should last a long time and hopefully manage his terminal sit. Now, just to address I heard this. So what is my evidence that his sit is reach this terminal phase? So this was a substack, I guess a guy named Matthew north, who I don’t really know, but it’s Matthew substack. He says, I approached you with respect and clarify that I’m not part of any team. I logically explain that your Loffler challenge is not direct evidence which can’t be disputed. I’m not sure why you’d focus on other comments if you feel that you are mostly all the same.

Ignore my argument, which is not addressed by your standard reply which you sent to everybody. The other thing is somebody named Tim west said, you know, I offered him €10,000 for any evidence of an infections biological pathogen has ever exist or that any virus genome has ever correspond to something in physical reality. And his response was to block me. I don’t know about his motives. And that was the reason why I thought for somebody who says they have irrefutable evidence to block somebody who’s offering them €10,000 to dem to show the evidence is definitely a clear sign of somebody going into terminal sit.

By the way, I don’t want to get into the whole Loeffler thing, but just as a comment, the argument was this guy named Loeffler with, I think it was hoof and mouth disease or some alleged viral illness, took a sample and then filtered it and centrifuged it. And the important point was he then diluted it, say one in a million, I think the number was so that he said it couldn’t. That therefore it ruled out the possibility of any toxin being the cause of this solution that he took from the sample of one cow with. With lesions in their mouth.

He took that, filtered it, centrifuged it, diluted it one in a million times, which he said eliminated the possibility there could be a toxin because it could be too diluted. Therefore it has to be a virus that caused the similar symptoms in the next cow. If that’s true, that that’s a proof of a virus, which of course there is no direct proof that, and I’m sure Matthew north explained this in detail, there is no possibility of having direct evidence. There was no way to do that in the 1800s. But if that was the case, that if you dilute something one in a million that proves it was a virus.

Therefore there should be well in the millions of viruses in the original sample, which means it would be very easy to filter that original sample and there would be millions of viruses which you would then see and then you would be able to see an electron microscopy. You would then be able to purify those millions of viruses and then isolate, purify, expose them to a cow, show that you had a virus and that it was the inciting agent for the new disease in the animals. And that has never been done. Which would be an obvious confirmation that it in fact was a virus and the fact that it still produced symptoms, allegedly.

I don’t know that I believe that, but that’s what he says. Even diluted one in a million proves there must be a virus. That should easily prove that there was in the millions of viruses in the filtered sample, which then should be easy to find and easy to isolate and purify and show that those were the agent that caused the illness. And that’s never been done. And so that’s obvious. You know that. Could you. There’s anybody who isn’t in the terminal stages of sit, would. Would be able to see that and understand that. So hopefully this is a plea for Mrs.

Meese to get involved and help this guy in his terminal state, just out of compassionate use. Okay, so that’s the second issue. Let’s get out of this for a minute. I think our Internet is still working and the sound I think is still good. So, so far so good. The third one which I mentioned was it’s interesting that the Robert Koch Institute has now admitted that they are not a scientific institution, which of course we all knew they’re all. The Robert Koch Institute is the German equivalent of the cdc. And I’m no expert in German law, thank God, but I understand that they are required by law to only do scientific experiments with appropriate controls.

That they actually have a mandate to do that under their legal system. That’s what Stefan said, and that’s the basis of a number of challenges. So again, I’m basically, you might say, stealing other people’s work here, but as always, when I steal stuff, I hopefully acknowledge where I steal it from. So this is from US Mortality, I think the guy’s name is Ben and that’s a substack. So everybody wants to check this out. And the title is German rkr, that’s the Robert Koch Institute Admits no negative controls in Viral Genome Sequencing and subtitles. Scientific standards abandoned in foundational COVID 19 research.

So this was their reply to a Freedom of Information request, I believe. And here’s what this sub stack said. The German RKI has confirmed they conducted no negative controls during genome sequencing of SARS, CoV2 or measles virus. Negative Controls where identical methodology is applied to samples without the target virus are essential for validating results. Instead, they rely on unvalidated PCR testing to confirm the presence prior to sequencing. So here’s the English translation of what they said and I think I’m going to read this in full and then his summary. So quote this is the RKI. Both the cultivation of measles and SARS CoV2 viruses as well as the genome sequencing of such viruses is carried out at RKI naturally in accordance with the standards of good scientific practice.

However, these do not provide for negative samples to be included during virus cultivation or genome sequencing. Rather, virus detection already places beforehand by means of molecular detection via PCR and or sequencing. Therefore, only pre analyzed samples are used for virus cultivation or genome sequencing itself where it has already been established that they contain the virus documentation and results for negative controls with healthy patient samples during the cultivation of measles virus in SARS CoV2 or the genome sequencing of such viruses therefore do not exist. So the key points are they claim to follow good scientific practice. 2 they admit no negative controls either in culturing or sequencing.

3 they rely on prior PCR to confirm the virus presence. Only pre analyzed samples already assumed to contain the virus are used. No documentation exists of negative controls with healthy samples. So this confirms the circular reasoning. They’re using PCR to prove virus presence, then using the same assumption to justify not including proper controls and sequencing. This also directly contradicts findings from my CDC FOIA request which revealed that no sample has ever been sequenced containing only purified viral genetic material. The CDC confirmed the presence of contaminating genetic material during SARS CoV2 sequencing, leaving the possibility wide open that the sequence could be a semi random variable construct.

And this is a little bit hard to see, but we’ve shown this before that I don’t think I can make this bigger. Anyways, it says that we confirm that we’ve never purified the virus and done a sequence from the pure virus. So what does all this mean? What is a negative control and why is that important? If you say the way we’re going to find a virus is we’re going to take this snot and we’re going to filter it and we’re going to put it on a cell culture and if the culture dies that’s how we prove there’s a virus so naturally then you would have to do the same thing with a culture that doesn’t have the virus allegedly and show that it doesn’t break down in the same way.

So you have to start with the virus and then do everything the same except not put the virus in. Now they can’t do that because they don’t have the virus. So they can’t use the virus as the independent variable. And, and they can’t expose this culture to everything except the virus because they don’t have the virus. Instead they use a PCR which is dependent on them somebody having found the virus first, which of course has never been done, because the next step is when they take this broken down culture and sequence it. They never do the sequence from a culture that allegedly doesn’t have the virus in it and see if they can get the same result.

Therefore, this is completely against the normal scientific method because they’re not controlling for their studies. They’re as he says, using circular reason to say that we found the virus with the pcr, even though the PCR can’t possibly be valid if these studies, negative controls were never done. So the whole thing is basically malarkey. Now I’m not necessarily sure that it was done to be deliberately deceptive, as the rules of malarkey would, would suggest, but it sure looks that way. Because anybody who has any scientific integrity at all would say without negative controls, there is no science being done at all.

And there is no evidence that this virus exists or that a culture is a valid way to find a virus or the genome has been found. There is no possible way to say that based on, on experiments without negative controls. And so here we have the basic main scientific establishment in Germany, in Europe, admitting that they do not do scientific experiments, clear for anybody to see. So this was good work to get them to admit it. So there should be no doubt about that. They are basically engaged in pure malarkey, just as we suspect.
[tr:tra].

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