18 thoughts on “Dr. Thomas Cowen, M.D.: Viruses as the effects of electromagnetic poisoning?”

1. Ta daaa! The last of the beans have been spilled.

2. Catholics want to know the truth, test all things, learn all things and ONLY KEEP THE TRUTH. Let study these, exam these, and decide it for yourselves under the Holy Spirit guidance. Here are the links:
   https://www.unz.com/article/was-the-2020-wuhan-coronavirus-an-engineered-biological-attack-on-china-by-america-for-geopolitical-advantage/

   https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-top-secret-plans-if-coronavirus-cripples-government-1492878

3. EXCELLENT ON PREVENTION AND TREATMENT: COVID-19, Pneumonia & Inflammasomes – The Melatonin Connection: https://www.evolutamente.it/covid-19-pneumonia-inflammasomes-the-melatonin-connection/

4. Pingback: FROM ROME: DR. THOMAS COWEN, M.D.: VIRUSES AS THE EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC POISONING? – PASSAPAROLADESSO

5. Dr. Cowan’s electric field hypothesis contains the implicit assumption that the earth’s electric field is constant until mankind disrupts it. However, that field originates from the potential difference between the Ionosphere and the earth which fluctuates daily, enormously, naturally and in every place, such as by 200,000 volts overnight in extreme weather (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere), and sometimes gets as high as 400,000 volts. Since the Ionosphere is the result of gas ionization in the upper atmosphere caused by the Sun, these changes have been occurring from time immemorial. Since it changes considerably on its own on a substantially larger scale than that to which Dr. Cowan refers, the electric field theory of disease is incorrect. This says nothing about whether 5G is unhealthy or not.

   1. I did not post this because I give credence to it, but because he presents a challenging argument, because artificial radiation is transmitted much closer than that of the ionosphere, and that of the ionosphere is God made, not man made. Your cell phone, for example is a lot closer to your head than the Van Allen Belts, so on that score I disagree with Dr. Cowan, who is not an electrical engineer or physicist.

6. I congratulate Dr. Cowan for “thinking out of the box.” To avoid misunderstanding created by me from trying to limit words in my last post, the electric field caused by the Ionosphere is not located only at the Ionosphere; it stretches from the Ionosphere to the surface of the earth. I have no doubt Dr. Cowan is an excellent physician, and I would not hesitate to read or view him again. I confine my comments to Dr. Cowan’s electric field hypothesis and to my expertise in Chemistry, Physics and a small amount of Chemical Engineering.

   1. Ok, use the standard equations for field dissipation and compare the voltage from your cellphone in your hand, to your head, with the voltage of the Van Allen Belts to your head. I have not done the calculati0n, but I would guess your cellphone is putting out a field more capable of inducing an electric current in your body, at that close range.

7. The greatest dissipation factor is wandering away from the electric field hypothesis of Dr. Cowan. The point is that the potential difference between the earth and the Ionosphere is enormous and natural. No electric field Dr. Cowan invoked will come anywhere close to it. In fact, on a walk in an open field, the point density is on the order of 120 volts per meter. But walk to a protruding object of any sort nearby, and it goes up to several thousands volts per meter. That change in electric field gradient of several thousands volts dwarfs the factors Dr. Cowan cites as examples. This is not an indictment or Dr. Cowan. It’s just the facts about the earth’s electric field. Again, I congratulate him on thinking out of the box.

   1. I think Dr Cowan’s observation has more to do with the fact of the kind of radiation being unnatural. The kind of field and wave variations in nature are something for which God made us adapt. He did not make us adapt to human created radiations. So while I concede he is way outside of his field, I also recognize that he may be on to something that science has not studied carefully enough.

      1. agreed

8. The notion that a 1V/m field existing naturally is different from a 1V/m field generated by man is a figment of the imagination. They are identical. This is like people who imagine that reacting 2 hydrogen molecules with a molecule of oxygen produces water that’s different from water in nature. On the contrary, they are identical.
   .
   Moreover, vague terms like “radiation” are unhelpful because no one knows which of many categories is being discussed. A flashlight produces radiation. On the other hand, I have made it clear that my comments apply only to electric fields, which is not in itself radiation. Another vague term is “natural”, as if all that is “natural” is safe, and all that is manmade is unsafe. If you take a natural walk into a natural jungle and encounter a natural tiger you will naturally be eaten. Being on the receiving end of a natural lightning bolt delivering billions of watts at 100 million to a billion volts is not safe, whereas the unique non-corroding, non-leachable manmade metallic mixtures called stainless steels that don’t exist in nature are perfectly safe.
   .
   Besides the implicit assumption that the earth’s electric field just sits there until disturbed by man, Dr. Cowan’s electric field hypothesis fails on a number of rather obvious medical counts. It doesn’t explain at least 7 major plagues that happened before the electrical age, and it doesn’t explain why most viruses greatly abate during warm weather while the earth’s electric field continues its massive daily changes. It doesn’t explain why an RNA “excretion” (Cowan’s term) has a lipid or protein coat. There are other medical facts not explained but these suffice to show that the electric field hypothesis does not meet the criteria of the Scientific Method which disqualifies any hypothesis that doesn’t explain all the relevant data AND eliminates other hypotheses.
   .
   Experience can sometimes make clear what is otherwise blocked by lack of understanding. For example, a person who rolls over in bed at night can see sparks jumping in the sheet if the room is dark and the sheet is a synthetic fiber. The action of sliding across the sheet creates charge separation (a potential difference, and therefore an electric field) that can be neutralized by charge transfer that manifests like a lightning bolt inside a cloud, except on a vastly smaller scale. One sees a very quick burst of diffuse light. But that light is not the field; it’s a by-product of charge transfer.
   .
   Better yet, slide across your synthetic car seat on a cold, dry day. Upon exiting the car and touching a metallic object, or even some non-metallic objects, you get a shock and can sometimes see the spark jump. Again, charge separation occurred by sliding across the synthetic car seat, and a potential difference was created, that is, an electric field. This happens in every country around the world that has cars and cold, dry weather. Yet we don’t see a massive number of cancers at the end of people’s fingers or on their derriere’s from a lifetime of “unnatural” electric fields (synthetic sheets and car seat covers are “unnatural”.) No manmade device I’ve ever put to my ear has ever delivered a lightning bolt, or even a spark. Therefore, whatever electric field exists is less than me sliding across my car seat, and just as free of negative health effects.
   .
   Forgive me for doing something now that I earnestly try to avoid, which is a kind of mind reading of another’s thoughts I call thinking by implication. But you’ve brought up topical matter outside Dr. Cowan’s electric field hypothesis which points to the possibility of conflating distinctly different physical phenomena. There are other kinds of fields which may have health effects in your earlier example, and perhaps this is what you are thinking of, but I am only addressing electric fields. There are even combination fields, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, and these may have health effects, and for certain do in some cases (x-ray cancer treatment). The electromagnetic spectrum sometimes has negative health effects because it delivers energy (calculated according to Planck’s Law), and therefore power when energy is delivered over time. Too much power does damage, whereas a single cosmic ray to your body, while powerful per unit, does virtually nothing to you because power on an absolute scale is negligible. When one reads safety standards (which I have), discussion centers around electromagnetic limits. Perhaps this is what you are thinking of, and I strongly suspect that you are conflating this with electric fields, but I am only addressing electric fields, not electromagnetic phenomena.
   .
   So, please allow me to conclude by assuming you are talking about electromagnetic effects, and please allow me to confine myself to the quite different area of earth’s natural, enormous, constantly varying electric field which is manifestly harmless to us unless we get in the way of a lightning bolt, but that’s charge transfer, not the electric field itself.

   1. Dear 77,

      I do not hold a degree in science, but I was top in my class in math and science at Highschool. No my impression is that artificial electrical or magnetic fields may present an entirely different problem than merely just the strength of the field. Rather it is the artificial fluctuations of fields produced by man which do not follow natural cycles nor have natural wave like structures. The hypothesis being that living organisims on earth already have a genetic and cellular structure for the natural back ground fields, but not for artificial fields, which by their strength and unnatural fluctuations may present problems for living organisms for which they are not adapted of which cause transformations of molecules or structures or an imbalance of normal functioning. I think the possibilities are really too big to simply write off, and that is why Dr Cowen presents an intriguing approach that deserves to be investigated.

9. No need to defend your credibility with high school math and science performance. One can clearly see that you are a highly intelligent man. That is not the topic. The topic is electric fields. I am very impressed with your website. It presents itself well to the eye, the content is unique and extremely helpful to the understanding, and it is consistently written lucidly. I express my sincere appreciation for your research and writings. You are a person of no small competence.

   Still, vague terms like “write off” are unhelpful and even misleading when scientifically verified facts have been presented that unambiguously answer questions. I paid Dr. Cowan’s theory the respect of looking at it in detail and from a fundamental perspective, filling in many holes he had left unanswered that refute his hypothesis definitively. For example, Dr. Cowan’s electric field hypothesis does not explain why viruses like cold and flu abate in warm weather, yet the earth’s electric field continues to change enormously, constantly and naturally in all places and at all times, and his hypothesis doesn’t explain 7 major plagues occurring before the age of electricity (e.g., Bubonic plague). There are more things not explained, but the Scientific Method stipulates that failure to explain even one piece of data says his hypothesis is wrong, in addition to his most fundamental error that the earth’s electric field sits there until disturbed by man.
   .
   Applying the term “wave” or “wave-like” to a field is incorrect because these terms normally indicate something that propagates across new space, like turning on a flashlight, whereas a field is located in a particular volume element of space, such as around the poles of a magnet. Fields are not a wave or wave-like. They are typically a gradient of some fundamental force across space, such as the potential difference between 2 points I have already mentioned (potential difference in units of volts; field in units of volts per meter; field gradient as changes in volts per meter across space). Now, a perturbation can propagate through a field from some like force outside the force or forces causing the field, but the field itself is not a wave or wave-like in its entirety, although that term is sometimes applied to what’s simply a one-time perturbation that may take the form of a wave. An example is the gravity “wave” detected by the 2 LIGO research sites in Louisiana and Washington state (USA) some time back. That was a perturbation in the gravity field caused by the enormous gravitational change of a black hole event. Indeed, it may have been a wave, but the gravity field itself is not a wave. The excitement was over DIRECT confirmation of a gravity field by detection of a predicted perturbation, rather than over the perturbation itself. The term “wave” is normally applied to something that is in its entirety wave-like, such as any part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, a phrase such as “radio waves” is physically correct.
   .
   You talk of constant electrical fields as “natural”, you and imply “healthy”. I cited the facts that the earth’s natural electrical field is far from constant, changing horizontally at the surface by thousands of volts per meter within a few meters, depending on topography, and naturally fluctuating over short time periods. Thus, I talked in terms not only of electric field strength, but also electric field FLUCTUATION. So, to use your words, “living organisms on earth already have a genetic and cellular structure for the natural background” electrical fields that are large and constantly fluctuating because that’s the way the earth’s electric field acts. I also gave 2 examples of smaller electric fields that are man-made and fluctuating yet have no ill effects (the electric field created by static electricity generated from sliding across a synthetic fiber sheet or car seat, and then annihilated by charge transfer.)
   .
   I did not address any other type of field, and explicitly said so. Therefore, do not attribute my comments about electrical fields to any other type of field, or to combination fields like electromagnetic energy (or EMF, i.e., electromagnetic frequencies). Again, and now I am close to certain, you are conflating electric fields with other kinds of fields and with electromagnetic energy. In the language and imprecise phrasing you use, a field is a field, but that’s not true since different kinds of fields exhibit drastically different properties. And perhaps so is Dr. Cowan conflating an electric field with other physical phenomena, who when he gives examples of perturbing the earth’s electric field doesn’t talk about things that change potential but instead about different kinds of EMF like radio and radar. If sharp non-periodic changes in electric field were unhealthy, then we’d all be dead after a thunderstorm whose lightning bolts annihilate a large (but local) part of the electric field. You and Dr. Cowan are confusing distinctly different physical phenomena. If you and he were simply to suggest that, for example, EMF can have ill health effects, you would have no argument from me. I’m only addressing electric fields, and I’ve proved the point that there are all kinds of natural and man-made electric fields, large and small, that fluctuate all the time without ill health effects.
   .
   Investigation started long ago and continues, so we already know before Dr. Cowan that some fields OTHER than electric fields and some electromagnetic phenomena (EMF) have ill health effects if allowed to achieve too high a level at too close a proximity. So, please, no talk of “write off”.

   1. I think Dr Cowan is talking EM Field. I am talking EM Field. I thought it was understood that when electrons move in a vector they have both an electrical and magnetic component, because whenever electrons move in a constant vector they create a magnetic field. Now granted the EM Field is one thing, but the wave flucutations in it are another thing. Just as certain frequencies of sound can shatter a crystal goblet, so certain frequencies of EM radiation, perhaps, can damage cells, at diverse levels, whether genetic or molecular. The Black Plague is caused by a bacteria. He is talking about exsomes, or viruses. And he is not saying that EMF is the sole or only cause, only that it may be one principal one in certain occasions. This is not the place for a debate. And I appreciate your comments. The purpose I posted this video is that it is thought provoking.

10. I’m glad to see that you are reading, deepening your thinking and expanding your already prodigious intellectual repertoire. I don’t always agree with you but I read you to challenge my basis set.
    .
    You say you thought you understood, and now…you don’t understand?
    Or, you still understand what you understood? I don’t get your point in that particular sentence, but it doesn’t obscure your other comments.
    .
    Still, it strains credibility to accept the assertion on the one hand that “the electrification of the earth” (3:38, video) seriously harms human health, and for you to then rule out that this doesn’t apply to harmful bacteria. If true, of course(!) it would make us more susceptible to harmful bacteria, such as the Black Death, except “the electrification of the earth” had not yet occurred.
    .
    There is till some imprecision in your language. EMF in equipment or appliance safety literature typically refers to leakage of FREQUENCIES, not fields. That was my wording and meaning when I earlier said that waves carry energy, and they become unhealthy when that energy gets too high; I described the electromagnetic spectrum in layman’s terms as light. As I said, you won’t get any argument from me if you say that EMF causes ill health effects, but I defined my terms precisely enough to make it clear I meant frequencies which inherently carry energy (Planck’s Law), as opposed to fields that don’t propagate through space. Some time back you mentioned cell phones. The concern there is incoming FREQUENCIES, which is inversely proportional to wave length, therefore propagating through space as a wave that carries energy.
    .
    Where Dr. Cowan’s approach fails is through being incomplete, an easy thing for anyone to do. You can’t know what you don’t know. His hypothesis fails on some obvious challenges to it of a medical nature, 2 of which I already presented. The staggered arrangement below just allows you to see which sentences belong together in a particular line of argument.
    / For example, why do the vast majority of cases of flu and cold viruses abate in warm weather?
    / By his theory, we should be getting sick year round, yet the vast majority of viral illnesses we experience are seasonal.
    / The material he calls “cell excretions”, that modern medicine calls viruses, is unique to each disease: the DNA or RNA sequence is unique; the coat is unique (protein and/or fatty lipid.)
    / Even what we call “Flu A” and “Flu B” change from year to year.
    / By his theory, the excretions should be the same if what the body is responding to is simply a change in electrification, perhaps only changing in amount of excretion, but not chemical signature.
    / If he would happen to assert that the cell excretions could be or would be chemically different, he would be required to provide a mechanism and data proving that assertion before his overall hypothesis satisfies the Scientific Method.
    / A theory satisfying the Scientific Method explains ALL the data.
    / What he refers to as excretions, he defines as DNA and RNA fragments, but in reality these things modern medicine calls viruses also consist of a protein coat and/or lipid (fatty) coat.
    / These coats are not explained by his hypothesis.
    / If viruses are really just excretion of toxic (ill) cells, why do they have a protein coat? They shouldn’t by his theory (DNA and RNA don’t contain protein and are quite chemically distinct from protein).
    / If viruses are really just excretions of toxic (ill) cells, why don’t we see other parts of cells excreted that are not DNA or RNA? (For example, isolated cell wall material or other material that’s not from the nucleus, and therefore doesn’t contain DNA.)
    / If viruses are really just excretions of toxic (ill) cells, why do we find genetic sequences inserted into human DNA that weren’t there before and are found in viral infectious agents?
    / These excretions alleged to be caused by electrification changes don’t explain the great plagues of history occurring before the age of electricity, or “lesser” epidemics.
    / The Antonine plague killed an estimated 5M (165-180 AD).
    / The Plague of Justinian killed an estimated 30-50M (541-542 AD).
    / Japanese smallpox killed an estimated 1M (735-737 AD).
    / The “Black Death” (Bubonic Plague) killed an estimated 200M (1347-1351 AD).
    / European smallpox killed an estimated 56M (1520).
    / The 17th century Great Plagues killed an estimated 3M (1600+ AD).
    / The 18th century Great Plagues killed an estimated 600K (1700+).
    If we add less catastrophic “epidemics”, then the list of pre-electrification diseases gets quite long in both size and time. Flu may be as much as 6000 years old. https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/ancient-civilizations/top-10-epidemic-diseases-that-were-common-in-ancient-world/. Yes, some of these are bacteria, and some are viruses.
    .
    I wouldn’t disagree that this is interesting thinking. But it has a ways to go before it can even be considered a hypothesis, in as much as there are facts that it doesn’t explain. Whereas, Dr. Cowan unabashedly presents it as fact.

11. Well, I see that the staggered arguments didn’t come through staggered, but I believe people will figure out what belongs together.

    1. 77 7s, comments are supposed to come out staggered, but why they do not I do not understand.

Comments are closed.