When evidence does not support a theory … ignore it

This article, Spread of the Spanish Flu Was Never Experimentally Confirmed, has details and evidence that I was searching for. It is written by Shin Jie Yong, a Malaysian “postgrad” in neurobiology. It is important to note that Yong is a proponent of germ theory, and since these results fly in the face of that theory, he doesn’t understand or accept them. He merely walks away from the evidence saying “We’ll probably never know the answer.”

No sir. We probably do.

The article is short, taking less than five minutes to read.

Here is what was done in 1919:

  • They isolated microbial mixtures from ten people suffering symptoms of influenza.
  • They then administered these mixtures to ten US Navy volunteers. None fell sick.
  • They then drew blood from influenza patients and administered it to the Navy volunteers. None fell sick.
  • They collected snot and other fluids from people suffering symptoms, filtered the mix to exclude bacteria, and then injected it into Navy volunteers. None fell sick.
  • They brought the Navy volunteers to meet the patients. They shook hands and talked. The patients exhaled onto the volunteers faces four or five times. They coughed directly onto the volunteers. None fell sick.

The obviouis conclusion, or at least direction of the path of evidence, should have been that the Spanish Flu was a variety of things, none contagious. Instead, Yong concludes that they Navy volunteers were immune. So they redid the experiment, this time using 50 Navy volunteers. None fell sick, but one doctor became ill. They could not prove human-to-human transmission.

The leader of the study, Dr. Milton J. Rosenau, concluded not that the disease was not transmissible, but rather that the volunteers were immune to it. Said Rosenau,

“We entered the outbreak with a notion that we knew the cause of the disease, and were quite sure we knew how it was transmitted from person to person,” he concluded. “Perhaps, if we have learned anything, it is that we are not quite sure what we know about the disease.”

I would drop the word “the” from its place before “disease.”

Another Doctor, John M. Eyler of the University of Minnesota, concluded in 2010 that “It seemed that what was acknowledged to be one of the most contagious of communicable diseases could not be transferred under experimental conditions.”

That’s weasel wording, avoiding the obvious. He needed to drop the words “under experimental conditions.”

This reminds me of the efforts of Thomas Rivers during the 1930s to rescue virus theory from Koch’s Postulates. Those postulates have never been met with any disease, even bacterial, because the first one says that infected people carry the pathogen while healthy people do not. Even something as common as strep throat, said to be highly contagious and caused by the streptococcus bacteria, does not meet KPs because that bacteria is in most if not all of us, healthy and sick. Undaunted, however, Rivers merely adopted a new set of postulates for viruses that claimed they cause disease while at the same time acknowledging that there are “asymptomatic carriers”,

That is still being thrown in our face today with Covid-19. The logical conclusion, since viruses don’t always (ever?) cause symptoms, was that viruses (whatever they are) don’t cause disease. Rivers, employed by the Rockefeller Foundation, could not go there.

Just as with Yong above noting that there was no experimental evidence to show that the Spanish Flu was transmissible, evidence that does not support germ theory is usually ignored. That’s all that the medical profession has done with the Rosenau study, ignore it. Yong continues to do so. Careers depend on it.

I do not understand the causes if the Spanish Flu, but at least have the good sense to admit my lack of insight. A matter known as “World War I” might have had an effect. Further, I cite below an intriguing passage from Mike Baillie’s book New Light on the Black Death:

Take this example from the ice-core records. If you access the particulate record from the American GISP2 ice core, you find that they give both the numbers of particles in the ice and the size of the particles through time. They provide this information running back to the seventh century. If you look at this 1300-year record you discover that the section of ice with the most particles and the largest particles is 1920-2. This spike is so huge in comparison with anything else in the record that it stands out like a sore thumb. There is a lesser but still outstanding spike in 1916. What on earth was the “event” that causes 1920-2 anomaly? One could possibly understand something in the middle of World War I putting dust into Greenland, but it’s hard to think of a “once in 1300 years” happening around 1920. Thus, as recently as the 1920s, when the world was well-connected, we have a complete enigma involving anomalous amounts of course dust – someone might like to solve this little enigma! Examples like this one (and there are many, many others relating to past happenings) suggests the past is really a bit of a mystery.” (Page 116)

What to make of that? I don’t know. I only know that the hunt for viruses precludes any real understanding of disease. We’ve got to come to our senses sometime soon, and allow medicine to exit the Dark Ages.

The measures put in place to fight Covid-19 are masks, distancing, quarantining, forcing people to stay at home, forbidding public gatherings, shutting down economies, closing churches and tossing the Bill of Rights out the window. This is all done without any scientific evidence to support the efficacy of any of these measures. The reason for this must be as it appears – that the measures are intended for other purposes having nothing to do with disease and everything to do with social control. The alleged virus is the means to another end. Bill Gates is not an humanitarian. Quite not.

I grabbed these words from the Sid Luckman post I wrote about a couple of days ago, More Truth Pills to Cure the Germ Theory Blind Spot. I think he sums it up nicely.

54 thoughts on “When evidence does not support a theory … ignore it

  1. Mark, you make some good points. But there is a certain imprecision in your presentation. I have tried in the past to ask questions to figure out exactly what it is that you are presenting. I would like to try one more time to figure out your position more precisely. I hope you will do me the kindness of responding to these questions.

    1. “Germ theory” has become a loaded term on the Internet. Surely you admit that there exists microbial life? There are bacteria, fungi, parasites, etc., yes? One-celled organisms not visible to the unaided eye?
    2. Viruses—whatever they are—are not alive. They are not microbes, not germs. Thus, one can dispute a viral theory of disease and still accept the reality of bacterial infections and contagions. Hence, “germ theory” can have meaning apart from viral theory, yes?

    3. Surely you acknowledge that when a good microbe (like the E. Coli organism which is helpful to digestion) gets in the wrong place (like the GI tract or the urinary tract), an infection develops and illness is experienced. Yes?

    4. There are countless cases—including surely some from your own personal experience as well as mine—when a bacterial infection has spread from one person to another. Yes, the contracting of disease depends in no small way on the “terrain” of each body. But the fact of transmission of bacterial diseases from one person to another is incontestable, is it not? Catching pink-eye from one’s cousin is not due to an increase in atmospheric particles: certainly we can all agree on that.

    So … do you agree that microbial life can be a contributing factor in disease in humans, animals, and plants?


      1. Thank you for the interesting article. While it makes many good points, I think it pushes an unhelpful dichotomy between germ theory and terrain theory. I found it curious also that the author—all the while dismissing germ theory and contagious disease—concludes his piece with these words:

        “It took almost a hundred years before the medical profession was willing to accept the truth of his observation that doctors were themselves contaminating women in childbirth with puerperal fever.”

        How were the doctors contaminating women, unless there was a transmission of some microbial agent? And why was it that simple hand-washing and sterilization of instruments largely succeeded in ending this trend … unless it was the case that some germ was being passed on by the doctors?


        1. “How were the doctors contaminating women, unless there was a transmission of some microbial agent (toxic agent)? And why was it that simple hand-washing and sterilization of instruments largely succeeded in ending this trend … unless it was the case that some germ (toxin) was being passed on by the doctors?” (parentheses mine)

          in almost every disease i have looked at, toxicity is the obvious cause, if one bothers to look. i have not researched this specific example, but the image of doctors grubby hands all over and inside women paints a graphic picture with implications that don’t require ‘germs’ as theory.

          tobacco mosaic disease, caused by the first ‘proven’ virus of our modern era. NOT …it was caused by arsenic, due to the application of arsenic based pesticides. symptoms of arsenic poisoning? what TMV looks like….from the beginning of the modern viral era, and nonstop til now, virus and contagion covers for both medical (pharmaceuticals) and industrial poisoning.


          1. ” … doctors grubby hands all over and inside women …”

            But … grubby with what? Toxins? What are these toxins?

            Are the doctors’ hands “grubbier” than the penis that impregnated the woman in the first place? Not likely. Grubbier than her vaginal canal at any time? Not likely.

            So what toxins—aside from bacteria—do the doctors introduce in your understanding?


            1. “Are the doctors’ hands “grubbier” than the penis that impregnated the woman in the first place? Not likely. Grubbier than her vaginal canal at any time?”

              Ok, i’ll drop the word grubby. Your typical penis doesn’t handle too many things during a normal day. Does a man perspire? Have bacteria on his penile skin? Yep….
              Why would we consider the vaginal canal to be dirty? Bacteria? Of course, but not prone to problems due to their presence.

              What does the good doc get his hands into during the day? What solvents, powders, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, etc., that might cause injury to a woman’s soft inner tissue? I’d look there for a start, if, taking the “puerperal” story at face value, i was looking for a probable cause.


              1. LOL. The era of Semmelweis (mentioned in the article linked above in connection with puerperal infections) was well before the antibiotics and pharmaceuticals that you identify as “toxins.” He prevented puerperal fever by taking anti-microbial measures.
                And they worked.

                Likewise with Joseph Lister: his antiseptic measures would in your understanding be viewed as introducing toxins into the act of surgery. And in a sense they were toxins—toxic to the microbial lifeforms that were causing post-operative infections. And that’s why his work was successful in bringing healing.


                1. This is part of my confusion – terrain theory people will tell you that infections are a natural part of healing and should be left alone. What you write here indicates that you think that infections are bad and should be halted by use of antibiotics.

                  It could be that most of the time infection should be left alone, but if the body is in a weakened state, as after being cut open by a surgeon, then they need to be stopped.


                  1. Well said, Mark. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Only a fool would claim that the discovery of penicillin did not save thousands of lives during World War II.

                    And I agree: the body has an amazing capacity for healing itself. Medical interventions are too often the first resort instead of the last.


                2. Ok, lol all you want. The question still remains, what did the good doc get his hands into during his workday that was dangerous? You want to say this was before antibiotics and pharmas, but what exactly were the predecessors to those things in practice? Arsenic based concoctions, perhaps? Something, at least, that they imagined would kill imaginary disease-causing entities, not to mention whatever sort of ‘drugs’ were in use that also should not be used to coat the interior of a vagina.

                  Blaming disease on “germs” does two very big things. It whitewashes the chemical industries in all their iterations, absolving them of most of the heavy damage inflicted, and it makes the poisonous branches of the chemical/pharmaceutical industries appear as bearing sweet flowers.


                  1. Who said obstetricians were coating the interior of birth canals with anything? Where does that assertion even come from?

                    You’re being obtuse. People were getting infections long before there was a chemical or pharmaceutical industry of the type you complain about. Blaming disease on unspecified “toxins” is no more coherent than appealing to astrology or evil spirits.

                    One can accept the existence of bacterial infections and still be a critic of Big Pharma. This false dichotomy posited by terrainists smells like a hidden agenda. And it sounds like the hoodoo being sent up in this South Park ad


                    1. coating, as in figure of speech. what you have on your hands gets on the vaginal walls, if you put your hands in there.

                      i’m being sharp, the opposite of obtuse.

                      ” People were getting infections long before there was a chemical or pharmaceutical industry of the type you complain about.”…people have had their “hands” in poison for as long as they have been innovating anything, and that is particularly true of the medicine men of all centuries.

                      “Blaming disease on unspecified “toxins” is no more coherent than appealing to astrology or evil spirits.”…blaming disease on beneficial organisms and non-existent sci-fi flying machines is, well, less coherent than appealing to astrology or evil spirits.

                      “smells like a hidden agenda”. that’s rich. yeah, if you all could just expose our plot, that would put an end to this corona scheme we’ve managed to put together.


                    2. AND there you go … running right back to that ol’ false dichotomy. But one can think that the Coronavirus mess is largely a fraud and still recognize the explanatory power of points in the germ theory of disease. There is no excluded middle here.

                      But you guys keep pushing that line of BS.

                      “Sci-fi flying machines”? You need to get off the toxins, son ….


                    3. “you guys keep pushing that line of BS.” well, you said it, so it must be true. i repent.

                      “Sci-fi flying machines”? You need to get off the toxins, son ….
                      they’re real. i got them from the following paper:

                      Empire Building in the 21st Century (or, evolution of bat particles)

                      The world’s greatest empire, an empire that rules over all so-called sovereign states, has unleashed, once again, its most feared and most powerful weapon. Yes, the Rockefeller empire of medical/ religious churches and affiliate organizations has launched its most direct viral attack yet on the world’s population. Several unlucky citizens are confirmed to have died of the virus or some other cause already.

                      This evil creature, well…it’s not actually alive…this thing, this VIRUS…is quite intelligent, and that’s why it’s so effective. Even though lacking a brain, heart, nervous system, arms, legs, wings, or anything else to make it functional or give it a modus operandi, this mini-monster has jumped and flown and traversed oceans (after escaping from its normal hangout in a bat, or civet-cat, or pig or something, it’s all a bit muddled), and ended up in Tom Hank’s nose. And in Australia, of all places! We know that because he said so, so it’s true (and it was reported in the New York Times). We also know (as reported in The Guardian), that this virus had a fling with a couple of Chinese nationals, killing one of them by mistake, before making its mysterious journey down under.

                      After landing in Tom’s nose, this brainless but brilliant particle of protein with a snippet of rna or dna or some other bat (or civet or pig) fibers attached, bored straight through his protective mucous layer, managed to sneak past a few white blood cells, and arrived at the door of a very, very, good- looking cell on the side of Tom’s sinus cavity. Slimy, but beautiful. Our little particle prick couldn’t help himself, of course, he knocked, and she let him in. And if that wasn’t bad enough, he didn’t tell her that he was a bat, or civet, or pig, or whatever, and that his jism just wouldn’t get the job done in the end. But she didn’t care, and she didn’t ask. He stuck his rna in her dna, and contrary to all the known laws of biology, the earth moved. This suited both of them just fine, so he kept stickin’ it to her, and boy did she ever respond. Now and then she would swell up and burst open, and lines of cute little rag-tag protein particles marched on out of her, kind of like Snowwhite and the seventy dwarfs.

                      As a result, Tom got the sniffles, then he sneezed. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Tom did not shove his mouth into his elbow before letting loose. Worse yet, he sneezed again, no elbow. It was probably the second sneeze that infected the prime minister before he traveled to America. The CDC should know about this stuff, and they say that a second sneeze is usually necessary, with an effective range of from one millimeter to six miles.

                      In case you’re wondering, Tom got well, but of course he’s a great empire patriot, so it figures. The big mystery was how in the world could a bat protein prick impregnate a human sinus cell. After all, everyone knows this cross-species stuff can’t happen, with the wrong dna/rna and all. The medical mafia kept putting the story out there that the viral prick-dude would “hijack” the cell, or “trick” the poor thing into (get this!), allowing it to REPLICATE. Makes a lot of sense, right? I’ll stick with the story above, just pure lust and earthquakes.

                      Finally, I have it from good sources that a collaboration between Rockefeller / GatesFoundation / Microsoft tech wizards figured out a way to get micro computers installed in all those nasty little v/buggers, and fortunately that fixed the glitch in the copulation chemistry. And that’s how the west was won, and why the Empire stays strong.


                    4. Ah … I see …

                      “Sci-fi flying machines” means viruses.
                      “Coating a woman’s vagina” means making incidental contact with the vulva in the course of delivering a baby.

                      No, you are not obtuse. There is in fact a better word for this roundabout use of language.

                      And again, you go back to the false dichotomy. [sigh]


          2. “Puerperal fever” is similar to another maternal disease which I have studied toxicologically, chorioamnionitis.

            Chorioamnionitis is officially called an “infectious disease”, however, pathologists have a difficult time associating germs with it. It correlates in many ways with prenatal ultrasound toxicity. The historical timeline is missing from the Internet. Can someone can find it?



        2. I agree that statement is a bit confusing given how indoctrinated we’ve all been into believing germ theory.

          But the point being made is that bacteria from one woman, for example, exposed to a completely different environment will morph into a toxin, just as juice from raw meat. The doctor’s hands are in an aerobic environment to which the bacteria adapts. So what’s normal and healthy inside an anaerobic body becomes a toxin outside of it.


    1. 1-”There are bacteria, fungi, parasites, etc., yes? One-celled organisms not visible to the unaided eye? “

      2-”dispute a viral theory of disease and still accept the reality of bacterial infections and contagions?”
      No. Bacteria are always there. Everywhere, inside and out, and continually adapting to the terrain offered by the state of our body. What * could* be called bacterial infection is not “caught”, but is simply the result of bacterial growth as the result of body disease, wherein bacteria proliferate in order to clean up dying, dead tissue. Pneumonia, for example……if bacteria are in this state of overgrowth as they clean up, toxemia from their waste is possible.

      As to the pleomorphism of bacteria, the article linked by Inside Baseball included this: “As far back as 1915, Dr. E.C. Rosenow, of the Mayo Clinic, was on that track. He demonstrated transmutations within germs of the pneumonia group. He took disease strains from many different sources, such as puerperal sepsis, arthritis, tonsillitis, and cow’s milk, and put them into one culture of a uniform media. After a while, there was no difference between the germs; they became all one class. Dr. Rosenow therefore concluded that there is no particularly fixed species of different germs and they all have the capacity to change their structure with changes in their nutriments.”

      3- “when a good microbe (like the E. Coli organism… gets in the wrong place…an infection develops and illness is experienced. Yes?”
      No. Same answer as two. See Dr. Rosenow.

      4-” countless cases—including surely some from your own personal experience as well as mine—when a bacterial infection has spread from one person to another…incontestable, is it not?”
      Not. We were all trained to see it that way, but evidence points the other way. If I had not been instructed by the AMA via some school textbook to fear “germs”, then I could rightly look at any concurrent experience of sickness and ask, “is there something in the (this) environment that we share? What is it?”…so no, if my friend and I each get pink-eye I don’t imagine that some of my bacteria went crazy and started running amuck, and then attacked him (her).


      1. Yes, we have gone over this ground here at POM before ad nauseam. You and your posse seem to claim that the plagues of old were not due to the spread of contagious diseases, but to the proliferation of bad plumbing. Or poorer personal hygiene. Or outbreaks of lead cookware sweeping across the Roman Empire from East to West. Anything but a new pathogen.

        Mind you: no evidence is ever evinced for these conjectures. They are just shots in the dark, like your claim that doctors used to coat vaginas with some unspecified substance.

        Also, why do you keep answering questions addressed to Mark? He’s a big boy. He can think and speak for himself.


  2. Maarten’s comment prompts me to wonder (in all ignorance about the details of viruses vs bacteria, etc), are viruses a sort of half truth… Spinning a scary fiction from the actual, but limited, case of bacteria… To create something with richer storytelling (and scaremongering) possibilities, in viruses?

    I really haven’t read up lately on the distinctions, and history of the two. But from a propaganda point of view, of course, half truths (or lies with a basis in something actual) of course are easier to promote, and harder to debunk.


  3. I have been immersed in germ/terrain for months now, and can only suggest that when one theory does not explain things, it does not follow that an alternative theory does. But I do know that germ theory is only one explanation, and is fraught with shortcomings.

    That said, I suggest that the outcome of the Spanish Flu experiments cries out for further research, and that research simply is not done. Even now, with Covid-19, there is no research on its transmissibility, only draconian measures based on the assumption that it is highly contagious. This is the state of medicine today, corrupt and used to further other goals, such as sale of drugs and placement of doctors in positions of power, and now, furtherance of fascism.

    Viral theory is, as I see it, a massive case of correlation = causation. Viruses could well be exosomes. These days virologists do not bother to isolate them, and the means by which they supposedly cause disease are at best guesswork.

    Bacteria are another matter, and pleomorphism is not discussed, not allowed to be discussed either among doctors or in med schools. Bechamp demonstrated that all the germs that cause decompositon exist in the organism prior to death. The confusion arises when we see the same disease appear in different organisms at the same time. The assumption of contagion is easy to understand, but as Rosenau accidentally demonstrated, things ain’t that simple.

    So my short answer to you is that I am a work in progress, and that I want to understand more than I do. To a large extent I just dunno. I see the shortcomings and abuse of germ theory in practice right now with the Covid-19 Scamdemic. It is used for nefarious purposes. The terrain alternative allows people to be at ease in their skins and live in peace in close contact with one another. But still, I dunno. I watch my own body heal and mend itself without outside intervention. If I break an arm I am off the the ER. If I get a disease, I am in hiding.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I started to read that but it got away from me, names upon names that I do not recognize. The idea that Diana was a fictional character played by others is appealing, as neither of her boys resembled their purported father. Somehow they were bringing new blood into the royal line, as Charles exhibited inbreeding, IMHO.

      However, I must say that 80% or 85% resemblance is not enough to be decisive. We all fall into facial patterns but that extra 20% would be critical.

      I’ve long thought that Madeleine McCann was the European version of JonBenet Ramsey, fictional death of a fictional child.


  4. “A claim on Facebook that a pandemic occurs exactly every 100 years cites four outbreaks that it says occurred in 1720, 1820, 1920 and 2020. But the first example was not a pandemic and the second and third started a couple of years before 1820 and 1920.” Insignificant, except for the fact that a Yale professor found it necessary to chime in. https://www.statesman.com/news/20200410/fact-check-has-pandemic-occurred-every-100-years


    1. I like what Dr. Joel Kittner at Manitoba University said earlier this year: “I’ve never seen anything like this, anything anywhere like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It’s called influenza. …”


  5. The experiment in which germs failed to transfer sickness from an ill person to a healthy person is mentioned in the book “The Invisible Rainbow.” The so-called Spanish Flu took place during a period in which the use of radio waves first became widespread.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. This is not the first ‘infectious disease originating from a bat’ that resulted in mandatory vaccination. This is from The Canadian journal of infectious diseases:

    “A nine-year-old boy died from rabies encephalitis caused by a rabies virus variant associated with insectivorous bats. The patient was most likely infected in the Laurentian Mountains of western Quebec, but neither the patient nor his parents remembered any direct contact with an animal…

    Rabies is a zoonosis responsible for more than 50,000 human deaths every year worldwide, as reported by the World Health Organization. In North America and Europe, human rabies has become a very rare disease, because of the systematic vaccination of domestic animals, massive vaccination campaigns of wild animals, efficacy of rabies post exposure prophylaxis (RPEP) and education programs. While knowledge about the risk of rabies associated with a bite from a terrestrial animal seems relatively adequate among the general public and medical care providers, a lack of information may exist regarding the risk of human rabies following contact with a bat.”


    This is how someone called Dr. John Fudens HMC DVM PH thinks about that:

    “We are told rabies vaccinations for our pets are “required” by law, but let me explain the two basic forms of law. One is the legal Constitutional and Common law that this country was founded on, and the other is “colorable” law passed by Administrative agencies and the bureaucrats, who have been given the authority to pass laws. Black’s Law Dictionary 5th Edition defines colorable law as “That which is in appearance only, and not in reality, what purports to be, hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth”.
    Please note that all mandatory rabies vaccination programs are colorable law, thus they have been passed and mandated upon the pet owning public by vested interest groups. And who are these groups? Primarily, they are the veterinarians and the veterinary medical organizations. Next are the local animal control personnel, bureaucrats, and of course, our politicians. Last but not least are the drug vaccine companies who make their money by pushing that stuff on to us. And why would they mandate a law that harms our animals? The answer lies in GREED, POWER AND CONTROL. Yes, these large and powerful interest groups stand to benefit greatly by having rabies vaccines mandated by colorable law.
    Veterinarians receive a large percentage of both their gross income and profit from vaccines given in their offices. On average, vaccines that cost a vet a mere $1-2 per dose cost his client $15-$25, and substantially more in large metropolitan areas.”


  7. I urge anyone interested in the post above and the ensuing debate between Maarten and Oregonmatt to take some time to listen to an interview with Dr. Tom Cowan at this site: https://drtomcowan.com/. Scroll down to the one titled “Do Germs Actually Make You Sick?” There’s a lot of valuable background information there. I am still confused, of course, but Cowan does make it clear that most of germ theory is unsupported by experimental evidence.


    1. Readers may also want to be informed that Dr. Thomas Cowan was put on probation in his practice of medicine in California for acts of professional negligence:
      Whatever one’s feelings on germ theory or Coronavirus, there is no question that this doctor’s actions were despicable.

      Another interesting read.

      Cowan also teaches that the heart does not pump blood. There are some good observations in the comments under this video.

      A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. It gives ignorant people the sense that they know all there is to know.


      1. Is the word “despicable” without a description of his actions warranted? As far as I can tell, he offered non-standard treatment of cancer. Certainly any alternative would be less despicable than chemo and radiation. Both of my brothers died after being treated in this manner. They suffered immensity from the treatment before death. I regard that as despicable.

        My third brother, Joe, opted to die without first undergoing the treatment nightmare.


        1. Truly, despicable is the word.

          Since you did not bother to read the linked document before questioning my descriptor, I will copy some relevant portions below, from pages 18 and 19 of the PDF. (Emphasis added.)

          (Gross Negligence)
          Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (b) (gross negligence) and/ or (c) (repeated negligent acts), of the Code in that he recommended a drug to P-1 [= the complaining patient] that did not have safety studies in humans or efficacy studies in humans and he did not obtain informed consent from P-1 for that recommendation.

          (Repeated Negligent Acts, Inadequate Records)
          Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and subject to disciplinary action under section 2234, subdivision (c) (repeated negligent acts), of the Code and/or section 2266 (inadequate records) of the Code in that Respondent engaged in the conduct described above including, but not limited to, the following:
          A. Respondent recommended a medication to P-1 without first performing a physical examination.
          B. Respondent failed to obtain informed consent from P-1 about the potential risks of treatment over the telephone without performing a physical examination.
          C. Respondent failed to ask for or obtain records of P-1 ‘s prior treatment for cancer.
          D. Respondent did not document the discussion he had with P -1 advising her to be upfront with her oncologist about taking GcMAF.
          E. Respondent did not document the discussion he had with P-1 about her concerns about the health consequences of having taken an unsafe medication for fifteen months.

          It shouldn’t matter what medical paradigm you prefer: this is very bad behavior for any physician.


          1. As I listened to him and Kaufman in a video, I had the feeling he was, like Kaufman, glad to be on the outside looking in, that allopathic medicine had lost its charm for him. But I agree, especially with informed consent, he misbehaved. Since the entire medical profession is about to chuck the Nuremberg accords with this new vaccine, maybe there will be discipline for them?


          2. The Thomas Cowan Affair

            “Dr. Thomas Cowan…there is no question that this doctor’s actions were despicable.”

            Sorry, but organizations run by criminals for the benefit of criminals, and to the detriment of trusting customers (which trust involves care of their health and lives ), do not get to label anyone “despicable”, or to impugn the motives or actions of others who make an attempt to deliver honest and beneficial health advice or care to those seeking it.

            Of course, they do it anyway, setting up kangaroo courts that effectively give off a shine of protecting the public from harmful quacks, but more importantly that put a stop to or at least put a chill into the actions of dissenters of this criminal cabal.

            I am not making a comment about Dr. Thomas Cowan’s practices or “teachings”, just that by default he is, by any fair evaluation, the one in position to be judge and jury of the medical cabal, not the other way around. In this context “informed consent” is misdirection from who is actually criminal, in effect a red herring.

            Not long ago an impressive article was posted here entitled “Snake-Oil salesman vs. Snake Oil-Salesman, Part 1”. In it, the author effectively lays out how “Rockefeller Medicine” was born. Quoting from the article:

            …”it was William Rockefeller, Sr., patriarch of that dynasty, that got the family into the pharmaceutical business. One of his ventures was precisely in the field of patent medicine. He sold Nujol, which was simply unrefined petroleum in a bottle. It was touted as a remedy for cancer, but it caused more carcinomas than it ever cured.

            “The Rockefellers continued on in the patent medicine business. One of the by-products of petroleum refining is benzene, and benzenes are the building blocks from which most every modern prescription drug is made. And so the Rockefellers developed benzene-based drugs, while at the same time lavishing their oil profits on medical schools around America. On the condition, of course, that the schools receiving these funds also emphasized the use of benzene-based drugs as the sole regimen for cures.

            “Their legacy is the hyper-prescribing health system we have today in the USA, based on the distribution of pharmaceuticals, to the exclusion of any other healing modality.”

            In summing up, the author of the above article says:

            …”this series of essays is not about health advice or even the medical-industrial complex. It is about the power of perception, and how easy it is to distort.  And how certain groups have made it their standard operating practice to conquer by subversion and blackwashing.”

            I would add to this list, in the case of “Rockefeller Medicine”, the standard operating practice of lies, suppression, and oppression…The article quoted above also referenced this paper by Makia Freeman, https://thefreedomarticles.com/western-medicine-rockefeller-medicine/, with excellent additional details on the origin of this corrupt medical empire, including their use of the “Flexner Report” to insure that other effective and “natural” healing modalities would be eliminated or severely restricted.

            A little more regarding Cowan, and the following drive-by insult lobbed his way:
            “A little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. It gives ignorant people the sense that they know all there is to know”. The slur of “ignorant” refers to Cowan’s saying that the heart is not a pump. Here is a paper that supports the idea. https://www.rsarchive.org/RelArtic/Marinelli/

            Go in peace, Thomas Cowan.


            1. That “despicable” comment stuck in my craw too, but it’s a tactic I have resorted too as well, kind of a back-against-the-wall round house punch. I’ve listened at length to Cowan. Nothing about him offends me, and get this … he admits mistakes.


            2. Using a patient as a guinea pig is despicable. Especially without first informing the patient that the treatment is untested and without getting the patient’s consent. It doesn’t matter who does it, mainstream doctor or alternative practitioner. It is despicable. It happens a lot. That it is so common does not make it any less despicable.


              1. I don’t know the full facts, not sure you do.

                When Brian Schweitzer was governor of Montana, a state senator, Mike Lange, was running against him. I knew Mike from my Billings days and did not like him. He turned out to be a person who imbibed on the job, and on camera launched into a drunken tirade against Schweitzer on the senate floor. His campaign ended that day. When asked about it Schweitzer said “I never judge a man when he is at his worst.”

                Best putdown ever. I suggest you back off from judgment, as you are really using this as a means of defending germ theory, and allow a man mistakes.


                1. As a friend, I suggest you delete your comment, lest ever hereafter every troll who sets foot in POM throw it back in your face. “Back off from judgment … and allow a man mistakes.” If you follow that advice, you will never write another post.

                  All the facts you need to know are in the court document I linked above, repeated here.

                  “First do no harm.” Dr. Cowan ignored that precept just badly as any allopathic doctor. He didn’t review the patient’s records, didn’t communicate with the patient’s other doctors, didn’t look into the manufacturing process of the alternative treatment he administered, didn’t advise his patient of the known risks of the treatment, didn’t keep careful records of his consults with her, didn’t get her informed consent for a risky course of treatment.

                  Abhorring such unprofessional behavior neither advances germ theory nor refutes terrain theory. By defending the indefensible, you hurt your own cause.


                2. Oh, Lawd!! The irony!!!!

                  I just glanced again at the title for your post. It is exactly what you ask us to do with the misdeeds of Tom Cowan … ignore them, because they don’t fit your notions of good and bad in the field of health.


  8. I’m not buying this. You’re indignity is perhaps threefold what it should be. I will look into this at my own pace, I have my own eyes and ears, and can often (not always) smell a rat. I don’t smell one with Cowan. The facts of the case, as an accusatory document, need to be balanced by his side. Have you heard it? If I listened only to prosecutors’ closing arguments, I’d hear some very smooth arguing. It’s their job.


    1. At your leisure, of course, take a peek at the legal document I linked. Go to the bottom of page 2, the section labeled “CULPABILITY.” There you will find this sentence:

      9. Respondent admits the truth of each and every charge and allegation in Accusation

      Cowan’s side of the story is the same as his accusers. No need to balance it better than that.


  9. “Cowan’s side of the story is the same as his accusers. No need to balance it better than that.”

    The accusers are the despicable ones. They have no standing, their status is completely corrupt due to their being part of the support structure for a criminal enterprise. In a just world they would be removed from their privileges and their authority taken away.

    We might guess that Cowan entered the medical industry with a desire to help people, and also with a desire to practice and do research with integrity. Like Kaufman and others, he began to understand the nature of the beast, and his integrity to truth and the principal of “do no harm” leads inevitably to conflict with the criminal enterprise. The PTB hold all the cards in that case, don’t they. They punish dissenters.

    “Respondent admits the truth”, and the kangaroo court has spoken. Cowan has no choice, if he wants to continue practicing in california.


    1. SMH …

      His accuser was a woman with cancer. Calling her criminal and despicable makes you sound as heartless as her disgraced doctor.

      The Thomas S. Cowan Memorial Bridge is not one you should keep trying to live under.


      1. As a man who has made mistakes and done things unworthy, I believe in forgiveness and redemption. I find your ongoing demeaning of Cowan to be mean-spirited. I accept that he screwed up, he probably does too even though he had no choice but to admit to everything if he ever wanted practice medicine again. As I understand now, he is moving, and I can only gather may relinquish his license, as he no longer believes in allopathic medicine as practiced. I did not hear him say this specifically, but merely inferred it from his words.

        And again, cancer treatment as done by the medical profession is assisted suicide.


        1. What you don’t like is that I have refuted your ongoing attempts to defend the indefensible. If you two had simply conceded the obvious point—that Cowan did something seriously wrong—I would have dropped it. It is your efforts to excuse him that keep the matter alive.


          1. I have not excused him. I said explicitly that he admitted to his wrongdoing, though Oregonmatt’s words “Kangaroo Court” resonate with me. I simply said we move forward, forgive, redeem. No sin is beyond forgiveness. If you choose to condemn and make this a permanent stain on the man, it is on you.


  10. The envelope containing ricin that supposedly was sent to White House reminded me that this poison causes flu like symptoms proving these kind of symptoms are not (only) caused by viruses.

    If there ever was a time to get away with killing someone with ricin…


    1. I’ve got that book open in front of me. I have been transcribing part of it to jog my memory and intend to write a long post about it. We are cutting and gathering wood right now, and when I’ve had the time, I’ve lacked motivation. Wood has gotten heavier over time.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s