The Contagion Myth

Why Viruses (including "Coronavirus") Are Not the Cause of Disease

Thomas S. Cowan, Sally Fallon Morell

• Publisher: Skyhorse
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781510764644
• Topic: Biological Sciences
• Subtopic: Microbiology & Molecular Biology
• Index: Biological Sciences

For readers of Plague of Corruption, Thomas S. Cowan, MD, and Sally Fallon Morellask the question: are there really such things as "viruses"? Or are electro smog, toxic living conditions, and 5G actually to blame for COVID-19? The official explanation for today's COVID-19 pandemic is a "dangerous, infectious virus." This is the rationale for isolating a large portion of the world's population in their homes so as to curb its spread. From face masks to social distancing, from antivirals to vaccines, these measures are predicated on the assumption that tiny viruses can cause serious illness and that such illness is transmissible person-to-person. It was Louis Pasteur who convinced a skeptical medical community that contagious germs cause disease; his "germ theory" now serves as the official explanation for most illness. However, in his private diaries he states unequivocally that in his entire career he was not once able to transfer disease with a pure culture of bacteria (he obviously wasn't able to purify viruses at that time). He admitted that the whole effort to prove contagion was a failure, leading to his famous death bed confession that "the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything." While the incidence and death statistics for COVID-19 may not be reliable, there is no question that many people have taken sick with a strange new disease—with odd symptoms like gasping for air and "fizzing" feelings—and hundreds of thousands have died. Many suspect that the cause is not viral but a kind of pollution unique to the modern age—electromagnetic pollution. Today we are surrounded by a jangle of overlapping and jarring frequencies—from power lines to the fridge to the cell phone. It started with the telegraph and progressed to worldwide electricity, then radar, then satellites that disrupt the ionosphere, then ubiquitous Wi-Fi. The most recent addition to this disturbing racket is fifth generation wireless—5G. In The Contagion Myth: Why Viruses (including Coronavirus) are Not the Cause of Disease, bestselling authors Thomas S. Cowan, MD, and Sally Fallon Morell tackle the true causes of COVID-19. On September 26, 2019, 5G wireless was turned on in Wuhan, China (and officially launched November 1) with a grid of about ten thousand antennas—more antennas than exist in the whole United States, all concentrated in one city. A spike in cases occurred on February 13, the same week that Wuhan turned on its 5G network for monitoring traffic. Illness has subsequently followed 5G installation in all the major cities in America. Since the dawn of the human race, medicine men and physicians have wondered about the cause of disease, especially what we call "contagions, " numerous people ill with similar symptoms, all at the same time. Does humankind suffer these outbreaks at the hands of an angry god or evil spirit? A disturbance in the atmosphere, a miasma? Do we catch the illness from others or from some outside influence?
As the restriction of our freedoms continues, more and more people are wondering whether this is true. Could a packet of RNA fragments, which cannot even be defined as a living organism, cause such havoc? Perhaps something else is involved—something that has upset the balance of nature and made us more susceptible to disease? Perhaps there is no "coronavirus" at all; perhaps, as Pasteur said, "the germ is nothing, the terrain is everything."

PART 1

EXPOSING THE GERM THEORY

CHAPTER 1

CONTAGION

Let’s get right to the nitty-gritty of this issue: contagion. How do we know whether any set of symptoms has an infectious cause? As we can all imagine, determining the cause of a disease in general, or a set of symptoms in any particular person, can be a complex and difficult task. Obviously, there are many factors to be considered for any one person at any one time in his or her life. Are the symptoms a result of genetics, poisoning, bad diet and nutrient deficiencies, stress, EMFs, negative emotions, placebo or nocebo effects—or infection from another person by a bacteria or virus?

In finding our way through this morass, we need well-defined rules to determine how to prove causation—and these rules should be clear, simple, and correct. We do have such rules, but scientists have ignored them for years. Unfortunately, failure to follow these guidelines threatens to destroy the fabric of society.

Imagine that an inventor calls you up and says he has invented a new ping-pong ball that is able to knock down brick walls and therefore make the process of demolition much easier and safer for builders and carpenters. Sounds interesting, although it is hard to imagine how a ping-pong ball could do such a thing. You ask the inventor to show you how he has determined that the new ping-pong balls are able to destroy brick walls. His company sends you a video. The video shows them putting a ping-pong ball in a bucket of rocks and ice cubes. They then take the bucket and fling it at a small brick wall. The wall goes down—“there’s the proof,” they say.

Wait a minute! How do we know it was the ping-pong ball that knocked the wall down and not the rocks and ice cubes that were also in the bucket?

“Good question,” the inventor replies and then sends you a video showing an animated or virtual ping-pong ball destroying a virtual brick wall. He lets you know that the ball and the wall are exact renditions of the actual ball and brick. Still, something doesn’t seem right; after all, it’s fairly easy to create a computer image or video that shows such an occurrence, yet we would all agree it has nothing to do with what might happen with the actual ball and wall.

The inventor is getting exasperated with all your questions, but since you are a potential investor and he is interested in having your financial support, he persists. He then sends you a detailed analysis of what makes his ping-pong ball special. It has special protrusions on the outside of the ball that “grab onto and destroy the integrity of the cement holding the bricks together.” Also, they build a lightweight internal system in the ping-pong ball that, according to the inventor, leverages the power of the ball, making it hundreds of times more powerful than the usual ping-pong ball. This, he says, is absolute proof that the new ball can whack down walls.

At this point, you are ready to hang up on this lunatic, but then he pulls the final trump card. He sends you videos of five esteemed researchers in the new field of ping-pong ball demolition. They, of course, have been funded entirely by the Ping-Pong Ball Demolition Council and have attained prestigious positions in the field. They each separately give testimony about the interesting qualities of this new ping-pong ball. They admit that more research is needed, but they have “presumptive” evidence that the claims of improved efficiency are correct and that a cautious investment is warranted. At that point, you do hang up the phone and check outside to see whether you’ve been dropped into Alice’s Wonderland, and whether you have just been talking to the Mad Hatter.

Now if this ping-pong ball can really knock down brick walls, the obvious thing to do is to take the ping-pong ball, throw it at the wall, and record what happens—then have multiple other non-invested people do the same to make sure the company didn’t put lead in the ball and throw it at a wall made of paper bricks. We could call this the Ultimate Ping-Pong Ball Test (UPPBT).

As bizarre and crazy as it sounds, this lack of evidence—that a microorganism called coronavirus pulls down the wall of your immune system, invades your cells, and starts replicating in them—is exactly what has happened with the “coronavirus” pandemic. No one has bothered to see what happens if you do the UPPBT, throwing the ball against the wall— and if you even suggest that we should do this, the trolls emerge from the shadows to call you a crazy person spreading “fake news.”

Most people would agree with the requirement of proving that the ping-pong ball can destroy the brick wall; it’s not something any of us would consider negotiable.. And most people would agree that seeing a real brick wall demolished by a ping-pong ball constitutes proof. In other words, sane, rational human beings would accept the above UPPBT as true and relevant.

Heinrich Hermann Robert Koch (1843–1910) is considered one of the founders of modern bacteriology; he created and improved laboratory technologies for isolating bacteria and also developed techniques for photographing bacteria. His research led to the creation of Koch’s postulates, a kind of UPPBT for disease, which consist of four principles linking specific microorganisms to specific diseases. Koch’s postulates are as follows:

1. The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease but not found in healthy organisms.

2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in a pure culture.

3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.

4. The microorganism must be re-isolated from the now diseased experimental host which received the inoculation of the microorganisms and identified as identical to the original specific causative agent.

If all four conditions are met, you have proven the infectious cause for a specific set of symptoms. This is the only way to prove causation. Interestingly, even Koch could not find proof of contagion using his postulates. He abandoned the requirement of the first postulate when he discovered carriers of cholera and typhoid fever who did not get sick.¹ In fact, bacteriologists and virologists today believe that Koch’s sensible and logical postulates “have been recognized as largely obsolete by epidemiologists since the 1950s.”²

Koch’s postulates are for bacteria, not for viruses, which are about one thousand times smaller. In the late nineteenth century, the first evidence for the existence of these tiny particles came from experiments with filters that had pores small enough to retain bacteria and let other particles through.

In 1937, Thomas Rivers modified Koch’s postulates in order to determine the infectious nature of viruses. Rivers’ postulates are as follows:

1. The virus can be isolated from diseased hosts.

2. The virus can be cultivated in host cells.

3. Proof of filterability—the virus can be filtered from a medium that also contains bacteria.

4. The filtered virus will produce a comparable disease when the cultivated virus is used to infect experimental animals.

5. The virus can be re-isolated from the infected experimental animal.

6. A specific immune response to the virus can be detected.

Please note that Rivers drops Koch’s first postulate—that’s because many people suffering from “viral” illness do not harbor the offending microorganism. Even with Koch’s first postulate missing, researchers have not been able to prove that a specific virus causes a specific disease using Rivers’ postulates; one study claims that Rivers’ postulates have been met for SARS, said to be a viral disease, but careful examination of this paper demonstrates that none of the postulates have been satisfied.³

Again, this book’s central claim is that no disease attributed to bacteria or viruses has met all of Koch’s postulates or all of Rivers’ criteria. This is not because the postulates are incorrect or obsolete (in fact, they are entirely logical) but rather because bacteria and viruses don’t cause disease, at least not in any way that we currently understand.

How did this state of error come about, especially concerning “infections” with bacteria and viruses? It goes back a long time—even to philosophies espoused in ancient Greece. Several philosophers and medics promoted this theory during the Renaissance,⁴ but in modern times this masquerade became the explanation for most disease with that great fraud and plagiarist, Louis Pasteur, father of the germ theory.

Imagine a case in which some people who drink the milk from a certain cow develop profuse, bloody diarrhea. Your job is to find the cause of the problem. You wonder whether there is a transmissible agent in the milk that is being consumed by the unfortunate people, which makes them ill. This seems perfectly reasonable thus far. You then examine the milk under the newly invented microscope apparatus and find a bacterium in the milk; you can tell by its appearance that it is different from the usual bacteria that are found in all milk. You carefully examine the milk, discover that most if not all of the people with bloody diarrhea in fact did drink this milk. You then examine the milk consumed by people who didn’t develop diarrhea and find that none of the milk samples contain this particular bacterium. You name the bacteria “listeria” after a fellow scientist. Then, to wrap up the case, you purify the bacteria, so that nothing else from the milk remains. You give this purified bacterial culture to a person who then develops bloody diarrhea; the clincher is that you then find this same bacteria in their stool. Case closed; infection proven.

Pasteur did this type of experiment for forty years. He found sick people, claimed to have isolated a bacterium, gave the pure culture to animals—often by injecting it into their brains—and made them sick. As a result, he became the celebrity scientist of his time, feted by kings and prime ministers, and hailed as a great scientist. His work led to pasteurization, a technique responsible for destroying the integrity and health-giving properties of milk (see chapter 9). His experiments ushered in the germ theory of disease, and for over a century this radical new theory has dominated not only the practice of Western medicine, but also our cultural and economic life.

We are proposing a different way of understanding the milk study. For example, what if the milk came from cows that were being poisoned or starved? Maybe they were dipped in flea poison; maybe they were fed grains sprayed with arsenic instead of their natural diet of grass; maybe they were fed distillery waste and cardboard—a common practice in Pasteur’s day in many cities around the world.

We now know with certainty that any toxins fed to a nursing mammal show up in her milk. What if these listeria bacteria are not the cause of anything but simply nature’s way of digesting and disposing of toxins? After all, this seems to be the role that bacteria play in biological life. If you put stinky stuff in your compost pile, the bacteria feed on the stuff and proliferate. No rational person would claim the compost pile has an infection. In fact, what the bacteria do in the compost pile is more of a bioremediation. Or, consider a pond that has become a dumping ground for poisons. The algae “see” the poison and digest it, returning the pond to a healthier state (as long as you stop poisoning the pond). Again, this is bioremediation, not infection.

If you take aerobic bacteria—bacteria that need oxygen—and put them in an anaerobic environment in which their oxygen supply is reduced, they often produce poisons. Clostridia is a family of bacteria that under healthy circumstances ferments carbohydrates in the lower bowel to produce important compounds like butyric acid; but under anaerobic conditions, this bacteria produces poisons that can cause botulism. It’s the poisons, not the bacteria itself, that make people sick; or more fundamentally, it’s the environment or terrain that cause the bacteria to create the poisons.

Isn’t it possible that toxins in the milk—possibly because the cow is not well nourished and cannot easily get rid of the toxins—account for the presence of listeria (which is always present in our bodies, along with billions of other bacteria and particles called viruses)? The listeria is simply biodegrading the toxins that proliferate due to the unhealthy condition of the milk.

The central question then is how can we prove that the listeria, and not something toxic in the milk, is causing the diarrhea? The answer is the same as in the ping-pong ball example: feeding a healthy person the milk is like throwing the bucket with stones, ice, and (yes...