What do you think would happen? What would be the results of Tom Cowan’s proposal?
You take four people. One is perfectly healthy. One has cancer. One has the flu (influenza A). The fourth has been diagnosed with COVID-19.
You take twenty nasal swabs from each of the four participants and label them A, B, C, and D. Then you send a set of those four samples to twenty different laboratories. Each of the twenty laboratories has an identical complement of the four samples. They are identical because they came from the same four subjects. You ask the laboratories to determine if the samples are positive for SARS-CoV-2?
If they are positive – meaning that the subject must be diagnosed as a case of COVID-19 – the laboratory is asked to then sequence the virus discovered in the sample.
After the diagnostics are complete, each of the laboratories sends all four results back to the trial headquarters. So, now the adjudicators have eighty results. (The experiment could be repeated, sending exactly the same sample once again to the same laboratories and comparing the results of the second round to the first.)
Of course, care would have to be taken to ensure that each step of the experiment is transparent and public.
What do you think would happen?
First, if this experiment should ever see the light of day, I want to take bets on the outcome. However, I’m certain that no one would put money on the likelihood that the sequences of the positive SARS-CoV-2 tests would be identical. No one from the FDA or CDC, not Paul Offit or Tony Fauci, not Peter McCullough or Dolores Cahill would risk a red cent on the sequences being identical (which they would have to be if the viral theory of COVID-19 were valid). Almost certainly, Albert Bourla and Stéphane Bancel would bet the farm that the experiment would fail. The laboratories would not produce the same results in regards to any of the questions asked. They would not consistently identify the alleged COVID-19 cases, but would randomly find the virus elsewhere. I am willing to bet that the results would be exactly what would be predicted by chance. When that happened, the entire SARS-CoV-2 virus theory would collapse.
Consider your bet. You can bet on the outcome. You can bet that the results from the labs correspond to the diagnoses of the trial subjects. You could also bet strictly on whether the laboratories identify the patient diagnosed with COVID-19. All twenty labs, or a percentage of them. Then, you can bet on whether the labs that identify the patient with COVID-19 also produce exactly the same genetic sequence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Since it’s the same patient (trial subject), there is no reason that the genetic sequence would vary at all from lab to lab. In other words, there would be no explanation for variants or mutations within the same sample.
Now that you’re actually placing your bets, how confident do you feel in the science of virology?
The reason I’m playing this thought experiment is that I strongly suspect that no laboratories will agree to participate and that no “scientist” or medical professional who accepts the viral theory of COVID-19 will support this initiative. How did you feel when considering your bet? I suspect that I’m not alone in feeling that there is no way on earth or in hell that all twenty laboratories will a) correctly identify the status of the four subjects, and b) consistently determine the genetic sequence of the virus allegedly afflicting the COVID-19 patient. Remember, if virology is a science, then all twenty laboratories will report exactly the same genetic sequence. Something in me simply knows that they can’t.
Virologists and infectious disease specialists would still have to show that the alleged virus is contagious and causes a condition called COVID-19. But, if we can’t validate the identification of the virus as proposed by Cowan, then transmission is no longer an issue.
Imagine the consequences.