The Invisible Enemy That Controls the World

Why Tom Cowan's Challenge to Virology Threatens Everything

Tom Cowan's March 2025 interview with Kim Iversen marks something of a watershed moment—not because he says anything particularly new, but because of where and how he's saying it. Here's a medical heretic who spent decades watching patients suffer through the machinery of modern medicine, who lost his mother-in-law to a system that murdered her with misdiagnoses and toxic treatments, reaching an audience that might never have questioned whether those tiny invisible particles we call viruses actually exist. Iversen's platform bridges worlds that rarely meet: the alternative media space where such questions thrive and the broader public still emerging from years of pandemic programming. When Cowan asks his deceptively simple question—"Are these actually real diseases, meaning specific syndromes?"—and then proceeds to demonstrate that measles, strep throat, and Fifth disease share virtually identical symptoms, he's not just poking holes in diagnostic criteria. He's pulling at a thread that, once unraveled, reveals the entire fabric of virology to be woven from assumptions rather than observations, from inference rather than evidence.

---

Note to Readers:

Trivia: This is post 1,001 since 15 Jan 2022, and there are now 22,020 subscribers. Thank you all, what a ride is been.

I wanted to share an exciting new resource that's just launched called Reality of Illness (realityofillness.com). It's a comprehensive directory of medical professionals, researchers, and historical figures who question mainstream germ theory and offer alternative perspectives on health and illness. The site features a clever ranking system where you can "like" profiles and resources that you find most compelling, helping push the best content to the top for others to discover. I’ve been kindly invited to create a profile there myself - if you visit the site, please search for "Unbekoming" and give my profile a like to help boost its visibility in the rankings. It's a fantastic tool for anyone looking to explore different paradigms of health beyond the conventional narrative, with easy access to books, videos, research papers, and social media links of hundreds of thought leaders in this space. Your support would be greatly appreciated!

---

What Conspiracy Sarah captures in her analysis, below, isn't just another takedown of virology's pseudoscientific methods—it's a document of awakening, both personal and collective. Her journey from accepting medical orthodoxy to recognizing "a psyop within a psyop within a psyop" mirrors what millions experienced during COVID: that exhausting process of releasing one theory after another, one hero after another, each revelation sending you back to the starting line like some cosmic game of Chutes and Ladders. But here's where her work transcends the typical skeptic's lament. By meticulously documenting how virologists "isolate" their quarry—mixing sick person's fluids with monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, antibiotics, and formaldehyde, then declaring victory when cells die—she exposes something far more troubling than bad science. This is ritualistic thinking masquerading as empiricism, where the cytopathic effect becomes proof of whatever virus the researchers already believed was there, even though the same cell death occurs without any patient sample at all.

The supporting voices—from pioneers like Stefan Lanka who performed the control experiments that should have ended virology decades ago, to contemporary warriors like Thomas Cowan, Mark Gober, and Mike Stone—form a kind of underground railroad of scientific dissent. Each brings their own angle to the demolition: Cowan with his medical practice proving that ringworm vanishes without antifungals when patients stop rolling in toxic mats; Gober showing how 225 health agencies worldwide admitted they have no purified SARS-CoV-2 sample; Stone revealing that virology lacks the most basic requirement of science—an independent variable. What emerges from their collective work isn't just criticism but revelation: every single "viral" disease from polio to COVID follows the same pattern of circular reasoning, where the existence of the virus is assumed to prove the disease which is assumed to prove the virus. Meanwhile, the actual causes—DDT for polio, industrial toxins for respiratory illness, malnutrition and poor sanitation for historical plagues—slip conveniently out of frame.

This brings us to the heart of why understanding virology's fraudulent foundation matters so profoundly. As D. Alec Zeck articulates with surgical precision, if viruses don't exist as claimed, then we're not just looking at bad science—we're looking at a control system so elegant in its design that it makes previous forms of social domination seem crude by comparison. Consider what this invisible enemy narrative enables: the culling of 166 million birds for a virus that's never been isolated; the transformation of every human into a potential bioweapon requiring masks, distance, and papers to move freely; the injection of billions with experimental genetic therapies to protect against something that exists only as a computer model. The genius isn't just in creating fear of an invisible enemy—it's in making that enemy so fundamental to our understanding of disease that questioning it seems like madness. Once you control the story of why people get sick, you control when they can gather, where they can go, what they must inject, and ultimately, whether they live as free beings or as permanently medicalized subjects of a biosecurity state.

The timeline from Pasteur to panic that Mike Stone traces, the Rockefeller Institute's strategic pivot from toxicology to virology that Engdahl documents, the way HIV/AIDS became the template for manufacturing consensus around non-existent pathogens—these aren't historical footnotes but the blueprint being executed before our eyes. When Cowan explains that antibiotics "work" by stopping the body's regeneration process, creating the illusion of cure while ensuring future illness, he's describing the perfect business model: customers who never truly heal, problems that multiply with each intervention, a population increasingly dependent on the very system that keeps them sick. The mothers Sarah describes, watching their babies scream after vaccination, being told it's normal, that the child is just "difficult"—they're witnessing their children's desperate attempt to communicate the only way they can that something is terribly wrong. But the system has an answer for that too: more diagnoses, more drugs, more interventions, each one moving the child further from their natural state of health while generating impressive quarterly returns for shareholders.

What Cowan offers in this interview, what all these voices collectively present, isn't merely the debunking of a scientific theory—it's an invitation to reclaim agency over our own bodies and consciousness. When he says we're choosing between Adam and Atom, between conscious creation with meaning and purpose versus meaningless billiard balls randomly colliding, he's identifying the fundamental split in human understanding that virology exploits. The virus narrative works because it reduces us to victims of chance, vulnerable meat sacks at the mercy of invisible predators, rather than conscious beings whose symptoms have meaning, whose bodies have intelligence, whose health reflects the totality of how we live, think, and relate to our environment. Understanding that viruses are a meta-narrative constructed for profit and control isn't the end of the journey—it's the beginning of asking what we're really made of, why we really get sick, and how we might live if we stopped accepting their story about random particles and started trusting the evidence of our own experience. As Sarah discovered through her painstaking research, and as millions are discovering through their own awakening, once you see how the trick is done, you can't unsee it. And once you can't unsee it, you're finally free to start asking the questions that matter.

With thanks to Conspiracy Sarah.

Conspiracy Sarah | Substack

Tom Cowan's Interview with Kim Iversen & Why It Matters

"You can control the world. And that's what they're doing."

Conspiracy Sarah

I recently listened to an interview Kim Iversen did with Tom Cowan in March of this year (2025). I initially didn’t listen to it because I am pretty familiar with Tom’s stance on on viruses and virology. I actually took his New Biology course over a year ago because I wanted to really understand this virus/not a virus thing and was tired of sifting through devolving arguments on Substack.

I was hesitant at first to give it any attention because I honestly couldn’t wrap my head around a foundational premise of our current system being so…wrong.

And so fraudulent.

But as I observed and understood the blatantly fraudulent operation known as covid, I began to realize that many things I had learned as fact, settled science, would need to be revisited.

Revisited with new eyes and new ears, and a willingness to suspend my own disbelief. If I actually wanted the truth I had to be willing to entertain possibilities I had previously discarded. And then I had to be willing to discard those if necessary.

I thought a lot of people wanted the truth. But as it turns out most people want their truth, not the truth. They quickly tire from the exhaustion that comes with releasing yet another theory or hero or cure because new information shed light on another deception. A psyop within a psyop within a psyop. I am so tired of that fucking word. It is exhausting. No argument there. It’s like getting sent back to the start of Chutes and Ladders when you’re almost at the finish...

So…in pursuit of figuring out what in the actual fuck happened, I set aside my preconceptions and listened to this crazy idea that no virus has ever been isolated.

---

How do we know what we know? How do we validate what we think we know?

We need a reliable, replicable way of understanding reality that is grounded in observable evidence and logic…not dogma or assumption or opinion.

Turns out that we have a method for this. It’s called the Scientific Method.

The scientific method involves formulating hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them through experiments. If a hypothesis is falsified, it is discarded or modified. This process of testing and revising theories is central to science…not to be confused with The Science™, which doesn’t appear to be terribly concerned with this method.

So a claim is made (a hypothesis) and then it is investigated and tested in an attempt to try and falsify it. Once a claim has been falsified that’s it. Done. Finished. Even if it works out 3000 other times. It only needs to be shown one time that a claim doesn’t work….that means that it’s not always true. Because one time it wasn’t.

Science is not competing theories. Philosophy is.

---

Tom Cowan on The Kim Iversen Show

I’ve clipped Tom’s interview with Kim Iversen and added a few slides to illustrate his points.

For the purpose of this interview, Tom has begun by naming two diseases to discuss that are currently in the media: Bird Flu and Measles, which is where we will pick up the interview.

I’d like to review Tom’s first question: Video here.

I would like to take a good look at how nonspecific these diseases are.

Directly from CDC:

Measles symptoms are:

• fever

• cough

• runny nose and eyes

• rash

• maculopapular rash (a type of rash characterized by a flat, red area on the skin that is covered with small confluent bumps)

Let’s have a look at what those symptoms look like :

(I looked up Koplik spots first👇)

Now review these images of strep throat:

Let’s look at some more images of various childhood rashes from CDC.

Here is a photo from CDC of a measles rash:

And here is Fifths Disease (from CDC):

Here is a picture of hand foot and mouth disease (CDC):

And here is a photo of chicken pox (CDC):

I am sharing these images and their symptoms to highlight the point that Tom was making. The symptoms are not distinct and you cannot simply look at someone and make a diagnosis.

Oh look, here is a Venn Diagram I made of four childhood illnesses and their symptoms:

So you have to use a test. Because the symptoms are not distinct enough to make a clinical diagnosis. What is a clinical diagnosis?

From NIH:

clinical diagnosis

The process of identifying a disease, condition, or injury based on the signs and symptoms a patient is having and the patient’s health history and physical exam. Further testing, such as blood tests, imaging tests, and biopsies, may be done after a clinical diagnosis is made.

So you have to use a test, which CDC says explicitly:

“Laboratory confirmation is essential for all sporadic measles cases and all outbreaks.”

What’s wrong with testing, that’s part of the scientific method, right?

Tom does a fantastic job explaining this, and I’m going to recap here.

In order to have a valid test, to know that a test is accurate, you must have a way of validating it.

Tom used the example of pregnancy. We are able to know absolutely that a woman is pregnant because we can observe a baby inside of her. And because we are able to know that a woman is pregnant we are then able to test the test…we can determine how valid/accurate it is.

We could give 100 pregnancy tests to 100 men that can’t possibly be pregnant and if one came back positive, then we would have a 1% false positive rate. We could give it to 100 women we know are pregnant and if one came back negative, we would have a 1% false negative rate. And we would know the accuracy of the test we were using.

But when we have conditions, diseases, that are impossible to diagnose by looking at a patient, unlike pregnancy or a broken arm…then we can’t ever really know that a test is accurate. How could we possibly be sure? (((Psssst….we can’t!)))

But what about testing for the purported VIRUS? Can’t we use a test that tests for the actual (alleged) virus, or pieces of it? This brings us to isolation. Let’s talk about that….

It is important to define terms along the way, especially considering how fluid definitions have become in the recent years.

To isolate means to separate one thing (the thing you are isolating) from everything else.

ISOLATE

(verb)

To separate (a substance) in pure form from a combined mixture.

This is a pretty important definition. Because if you are going to say that one thing causes another thing you have to be able to separate (isolate) that one thing from everything else and show that it causes an outcome.

Let’s go back to Tom for a run down on how “isolation” happens and then I’ll circle back with a recap. I’ll provide references to the papers Tom mentions at the end of this post so you can see it with your own eyes. (I had to actually read the original papers because I simply couldn’t believe that this could possibly be called science.)

Video here.

Ok, let’s recap.

You might assume that to find a virus, scientists take snot or pus or something from a sick person and look at it under a microscope and see a unique entity called a virus. But that doesn’t happen. And that has never happened.

It turns out you can’t find a virus directly from the host.

Here is some history on how we have come to “isolate” viruses, which involves a concoction of biological serums and extracts and cells and drugs and chemicals.

In the early 1900s people were falling ill, paralyzed, and dying from something. It wasn’t a bacteria (because bacteria can be observed), so it was assumed that there was a smaller particle responsible.

This was termed a virus.

The way the alleged virus was demonstrated and “proven” was by taking fluid from the spine of a sick person who died, blending it up, and injecting it directly into the brain of two monkeys. One monkey died and the other became paralyzed, which was the “proof” there was a virus. They repeated this different ways. Sometimes injecting the death fluid into other organs or squirting it up the nose, but always blending up dead tissue. And this was “proof” polio was (a) a virus making people sick and (b) contagious.

Not to get us off track, but this is relevant to the discussion. While The Science™ was busy grinding up spines and injecting them directly into brains and the Rockefellers were taking over the brainwashing training of doctors and medical schools, the precursor to the CIA (run by a Rockefeller) was partnering with Disney to get the message out about dangerous viruses like polio. Please see this post for more on that:

Disney/OCIAA Productions Presents: Malaria, DDT, & Polio

Conspiracy Sarah

Alright, so for 50 years they only experimented with sick death fluid. In the mid 1950s they tried injecting the ground up spine of a healthy person into the brains of monkeys and lo and behold they got the same result of paralysis and death.

Rather than determining that the process of injecting blended spinal death fluid into the brains of monkeys might be causing the paralysis and death, they instead took a giant shit on the scientific method and changed their method to accommodate the viral contagion theory.

The new method was called Cell Culture.

Here is what cell culture technique looks like. This is directly from the original Enders paper, Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles.*+ (21073) (emphasis and added definitions mine):

Tissue culture technics. In the initial isolation attempts roller tube cultures (1 1 1 2) of human kidney, human embryonic lung, human embryonic intestine, human uterus and rhesus monkey testis were employed. Subsequent passages of the agents isolated were later attempted in human kidney, human embryonic skin and muscle, human foreskin, human uterus, rhesus monkey kidney and embryonic chick tissue. Stationary cultures prepared according to the technic of Youngner(13) with trypsinized human and rhesus monkey kidney were later employed for isolation of agents and their passage.

The culture medium consisted of bovine amniotic fluid (go%), beef embryo extract (50/0), horse serum ( 5 % ) , antibiotics, and phenol red as an indicator of cell metabolism (1 2). Soybean trypsin inhibitor was added to this medium unless it was used for the cultivation of human and monkey kidney(11). Fluids were usually changed at intervals of 4-5 days. For histological examination the cell growth after fixation in 10% formalin [formaldehyde and water preservative] was embedded in collodion [flammable, syrupy solution of nitrocellulose in ether and alcohol], dehydrated and stained with hematoxylin and eosin.

Let me whisper that for you.

1. They take the fluid from a sick person (which could contain many things like blood, mucus, debris, etc) and add it to a growth medium (which could also contain any number of biological constituents) like monkey kidney cells or embryonic tissue.

2. They give it nutrients. This is often fetal calf serum, embryonic extract, and serums from horses, rabbits, or other animals.

3. They also add antibiotics which are often strong and known to be toxic to the cell lines being used.

4. A number of other chemicals are added to stabilize, wash, and stain the sample.

5. If cell death occurs (know as the cytopathic effect) then this “proves” viral invasion.

That, my friends, is what SCIENTISTS call “isolation”. With a straight face. In fact, Enders won a Nobel Prize for it (although Nobel Prize winning is whole bag of fuckery worthy of its own post..oh wait, I did that already, here and here.)

Was all of that shocking to you???

It was to me. Which is why I’m including the original publications for your review at the end of this post. Here are links if you would like to dig them up yourself, polio paper here and the measles paper here. (Like so much of The Science™ though, full access to these articles is not readily available because why would the foundational virology papers that form the basis of the medical industrial complex be easily accessed???🤔). So I jumped through the hoops, downloaded the papers, and included screen shots at the end of this post for you fine folks 😘.

Back to the Viral Fairytale…

After learning about the shaky “science” of virology I began checking any study I read for this cell culturing bullshit…and you guys, it happens Every. Single. Time. Go look for yourself. Find the materials and methods section of any paper concerning a virus. It’ll be aggravating because they won’t just have it right there to read. It’ll say something like, “Avian Moo Pox virus was isolated using the technique of Smith (11)”. You’ll then need to go to the reference section of the paper and find that reference and look it up. If you’re lucky you’ll just have to do this once. However, often when you go to Smith, you’ll find that he used the technique of Miller (8), and you’ll need to do the same referencing rigamarole again.

Now if I didn’t know any better I would think that they intentionally bury their bullshit anti science “isolation” methods because if they just had it printed out in every study, it would be way easier for anyone with half a brain to notice that a laundry list of animal serums and cell lines is like, the opposite of isolation. And that the “isolation” process is anything but…and a more accurate name for their method would be “integration”.

Maybe even some doctors, who’s rote memorization and recall skills were being tested under duress in their early med school years, might notice that the cell culture isolation techniques that they learned as Nobel Prize worthy historical achievements were actually a brick in the wall of control, brought to them by their Rockefeller Medical School. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe most docs went back and checked references in their text books, and read the original papers. There are a few doctors that sub to this stack…maybe they’ll weigh in on their experience.

---

I’ve been looking at this topic for a hot minute now, and I feel pretty comfortable discussing it openly. My studio gives me the opportunity to hone my words and I continue to bring this to some of my clients. And at this point, The Unavoidable Question is posed:

First and foremost, the falsification of a theory does not require the presentation of a new one. Just because much of our current system is predicated on an inherent belief in the validity of a theory (virology), doesn’t mean that falsification doesn’t count. I’m going to talk about the falsification piece briefly and then we’ll discuss The Unavoidable Question.

This cell culture technique is considered the “gold standard” for isolation and proof of a virus, yet there is conveniently never a valid control. A valid control would look like two side by side experiments. Everything would be the same with both sets, except one set would exclude the supposed viral sample. So the fetal calf serum and the horse extract, and the antibiotics, and the washes and dyes, etc, etc, in all the same amounts would be added to both sets of plates.

That is never done. This is a problem.

So Stephan Lanka did the heavy lifting and performed Control Experiments using no viral sample. And what, pray tell, did he find? He showed that the same cytopathic effect (that isolates and proves a virus) was able to be achieved just by the cell culture method alone.

This is called falsifying a claim.

And his findings have been repeated. I wrote about it at length last year:

Perhaps The Most Important Work of Our Time: The Elusive "Virus", The Control Experiment, & Jamie Andrews

Conspiracy Sarah

I watched an interview on Thursday morning which I consider to be among one of the most compelling I’ve ever encountered. I was so excited to write it up. After fire-hosing my excitement to my best friend (who happens to also be in the business of obsessing over the psychological operation and how it got done), I realized that a clear explanation of w…

Read full story

So the cell culture method of viral isolation has been falsified and no part of this falsification requires an alternate hypothesis.

I don’t know. It could be a number of things, but guessing about what “it” is, isn’t what this post is about. I want to emphasize that THIS UNAVOIDABLE QUESTION is why I can’t let this topic go though.

We will absolutely NEVER get the answer if we aren’t even looking for it. Refusing to entertain the idea that viral theory is fundamentally flawed because there isn’t an alternate theory waiting in the wings ensures that we won’t ever answer The Unavoidable Question. As long as we are mixing a cacophony of genetic material, poisons, and toxins together and accepting that an otherwise invisible thing has been isolated and is causing illness, we will continue to believe the emperor is wearing lovely clothes.

This is hard, y’all. I know. My family has no shortage of doctors. I was raised on a steady diet of well checks and allopathic allegiance. This was not an easy thing for me to entertain.

We have been conditioned to see convenient patterns that support a theory that the same symptoms at relatively the same time and place equals contagion. You get sick, you think back to who you saw that was sick. You probably don’t regularly review the number of people you see that are coughing or sneezing, etc and you don’t get sick…although that’s almost certainly a more compelling number (credit to Dr Mike Yeadon for pointing this out).

Here is a post I did about predictive coding, specifically Disney’s role in conditioning the theory of contagion. There has been an impressive amount of effort and expense spent convincing the public that viruses are abundant, deadly, and spread between humans, animals, and insects. It’s a battle between us and the deadly germs… and we need countermeasures:

Disney's Long History of Predictive Coding

Conspiracy Sarah

Read full story

You Can Control the World

Here’s Tom again.

And that’s what they’re doing.

Relying on the viral contagion story prevents us from looking at any other possibility and prevents us from answering The Unavoidable Question. But most importantly, adhering to this falsified viral/contagion theory allows us to be controlled by means of an invisible entity. An entity that only The Science™ has methods for “seeing” and understanding. The Science™ provides guidance for the management of the invisible thing, and the government readily uses that guidance to implement restrictions. Think I’m being dramatic? Please see here👇

50 of 50 States Already Have Rules in Place for Not Quarantine Camps.

Conspiracy Sarah

Read full story

I have recently seen multiple articles written expressing frustration with the No Virus sticklers. They are sure it’s a psyop full of bad actors, and have lamented that this debate distracts from the terrible, poisonous, mRNA injections still being deployed.

Hey guys…rest assured that every aspect of everything; every freedom movement, every wellness trend, and every potential bit of truth has been infiltrated with bad actors and fake heroes and whistle blower bombshell distractions and psyop-ery.

What would make more sense?

• That they, the owners of the world, would let the discovery of a massive, obvious, inconvenient and fundamental flaw in the premise, upon which our entire system is dependent, that provides a direct mechanism for controlling the population, go unchecked?

• Or that they would employ familiar tactics and strategies to infiltrate, obscure, and discredit it?

Continuing to only focus on what happened with “covid”, the current toxic mRNA injections and wtf is in them, or the childhood injection program is continuing to operate within the established paradigm of dangerous contagion, for which the proof has been falsified. Please do not misunderstand what I’m saying here. The toxic injections must stop. The regular poison injection of children must stop.

If the foundational fraud is realized, then the toxic injection debate is over. No jabs were necessary.

Ever.

Not for polio.

Not for “covid”.

And not for a future something.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.