Dr Tom Cowan reviews Sebastian Powell's "Revising Germ Theory"
A kind critique of a kindred spirit who is "this close"!
In Dr. Cowan’s Wednesday’s livestream, Tom did a review of Sebastien Powell’s “Revising ‘germ theory’”, published to his Substack here:
I used to follow Seb (@sebpowell) on Twitter, before I lost four accounts, and I was permanently banned from the platform.
I got really excited by the things he wrote. I felt he was a kindred spirit. I am in fairly regular contact with some of the elders of #TeamNoVirus, but I’d never heard his name come up. So I was considering introducing them to his work. (I don’t recall if I did).
But this presentation I found a little unclear. I got half way into it, and wasn’t really clear what his basic thesis is. I wasn’t really finding an abstract-type summary.
Of course the thing I am always listening for is,
“Does this person believe in viruses?”
But all I was hearing this time was ambiguity.
It seems to me that Seb basically agrees with the #NoVirus perspective, but perhaps wants to appeal to Virus-Huggers, so he bolts-on an explanation of what “viruses” are (“viruses are exosomes”), and what “viral genomes” are (the state of our general health), to try to make them appear sensible.
But this is really an impossible task, as I stated in the comments to his article.
He seems to be modifying the definition of “virus”. He’s in good company, along with Dr. Larry Palevsky, Dr. Zach Bush, Dr. Peter Duesberg, and Jeff Green, all who say either that “viruses are not contagious” or “virus are not [always] pathogenic”.
The only problem with this is that viruses are defined to be pathogenic and communicable!
Let’s recall that an alleged virus is, a:
"Replication-competent intra-cellular obligate parasites that cause cellular necrosis and symptomatic disease, which transmit between hosts via natural modes of exposure."
[This is my own definition, derived from one used by Dr. Mark Bailey and Christine Massey. Details here ]
The way Seb and these others are arguing seems to me like we are discussing whether or not Unicorns exist, and someone says, “I know what those are! They are little furry animals that purr and chase mice!” And then for proof that Unicorns exist, they hold up a photo of their cat.
This is what Tom Cowan and Alec Zeck have been reminding us is the “Reification Fallacy” (turning the fictional into the real), or perhaps the “Masked-Man Fallacy” (if A and B are the same object, then A and B are indiscernible).
I find this kind of exchange, with someone like Seb (with whom I largely agree) quite valuable, if only to give me an opportunity to hone the clarity of my own understanding and arguments. But also to help out other readers, who might be going down this path, and wanting to hear another perspective.
Here’s Tom’s webinar:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/uMmYoHuLQ3Ps/
I also encourage you to check out Seb’s original presentation, and consider subscribing to his blog.
Be respectful if you leave a comment. Seb seems like an ally, and is very close to concurrence on the most important things.
Bill, did you read the article I sent you? If not please do so before you respond to this.
https://sebastienpowell.substack.com/p/the-virus-or-the-egg
It makes it pretty clear, I think, that I don't think 'viruses' are literally exactly the same as 'exosomes'. The article shows how virologists are unable to differentiate the two, whilst claiming one is pathogenic, and the other isn't, that one is able to 'replicate', whilst the other is 'created'. I make it clear that this idea of 'replication' is entirely theoretical, and therefore I do not think that 'viruses' as they are described exist.
That doesn't mean the particles themselves don't exist, the question is; what are they, and what are their properties. I actually used the unicorn analogy in that article. The pictures of particles do not prove in any way shape or form that said particles have the properties that virologists attribute to them.
So I don't really understand why you are persisting on making out that I think they are exactly the same. Where have I said that? How have I implied it? Do you really think that if I genuinely thought it, we would even be having this conversation? Of course not, I would just call them 'viruses' and be done with it.
I will add that this was a common theme in Cowan's video, which I took issue with. For instance, he states that I attribute various 'disease' to various 'viruses', when of course, I do no such thing – I am merely stating what THEY say. The purpose of this segment was to demonstrate that all of these allegedly disparate 'diseases' caused by allegedly disparate 'viruses' and other microorganisms are really no such thing. That may be obvious to you, but it isn't obvious to others who are new to the subject.
You further state that you are unclear on the main thesis. I rewatched the video, and at the end, I make it quite clear, when I state: "Malaria actually provides one of the best examples for how differences in testing protocols distract people with endless lists of diseases and alleged pathogens, and ignore the common denominator, which appears to be mass poisoning."
Of course, you wouldn't have seen this bit, or indeed the entire segment on exosomes, because you didn't watch it in full.
At your request, I also made this clear in the introduction to the video:
"The core hypothesis that is presented could be summed up as follows; the plethora of seemingly disparate ‘diseases’ are in fact varying symptoms of poisoning. There is one poison in particular, arsenic, that we have been able to link back to just about every ‘disease’ known to us. Virology can essentially be thought of as a subset of toxicology."
When I say "a subset of toxicology", what I mean is that the observations they are making – regardless of whether they realise it or not – are of what happens when you inject contaminated (poisoned) tissue into cell culture, 'animal models' etc. This is entirely consistent with what 'terrain theorists' keep saying; if you poison cells, they start to break down. Whether you like it or not, that is what they are effectively doing in their labs; they are observing what happens to cells when they are poisoned, and mistakenly (or fraudulently) attributing the break down to the particles they call 'viruses'. That doesn't mean the particles are 'contagious', or 'self-replicating' – it simply means what I said above. I don't understand why this is contentious, and if you read through my Substack, you will see that at no point, ever, do I suggest that these particles are the *cause* of any given 'disease'.
Hopefully that's cleared things up for you. If you have a clearer way of enunciating the core hypothesis, I am happy to take suggestions.
thank you I really enjoyed both presentations and learnt some things.