War on Lies logo


War on Lies Library


COVID Legal Court-case Strategy


Dr. Tom Cowan

Date: 5/9/2023
Subjects: Academic/research paper analysis of COVID-19 virus, virology lie, involving real winning court case(s) in Germany, which can be applied as legal strategy for all worldwide COVID fines and oppressions.
ID: Article 8.

This video features Dr. Tom Cowan with main subject virology lies, with specific focus on COVID-19 fraud, debunking the existence of viruses, which traced back to original virology academic research activities and papers (lies), which were all presented on War on Lies (WoL) library articles previously. Dr. Cowan presents brief simplified story (non-rigorous academically), about an engineer/scientist gentleman Marvin Haberland in German who purposely went through all the troubles to set up standards for the whole world and the foundation for many other cases, which the world will be dealing with in courthouses in regards to so-called COVID virus. WoL will not feature those videos and other relating sources analysis and simplified explanations in details. We will simply present the URLs as text for relating URLs for those who want to follow into details:

https://odysee.com/@katie.su:7/thecourtcaseagainstvirology -- COVID-19 mask requirement violation court case discussion with a reporter in English.
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/victory-in-court-virology-indefensible -- more detail webpage presentation in English with other leads about the case above.
https://drsambailey.com/ -- another up-right distinguished doctor in New Zealand who has been informing the fake medical foundations of the West, especially the virus, and germs theories.

Unlike in the USA, there is a law in Germany for scientists and science: “all scientists must follow SCIENTIFIC METHODS”. Scientific methods are taught to us since eighth grades:
• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Many of the US college medical/biology textbooks nullify this undeniable definition of science and make up their own definition, such as not everything in science is observable, questionable, testable, predictable, and so on. Marvin Haberland’s conversation with Kate Sugak pivots around some key terms, which may seem ambiguous and confusing to people who don’t have high-level academic disciplines, especially in science and very especially in virology/medical research paper reading. The keywords are “controlled experiment”, time 27:09 in video, and violation of “iterate” step from scientific methods. Although most other medical research activities did “controlled experiment”, virologist never did controlled experiment in all their research activities, which could traced back to 1950s when first “discovery” of virus was published.

A “controlled experiment” is a scientific test done under controlled conditions, meaning that just one (or a few) factors are changed at a time, while all others are kept constant. A scientific investigation in which both the controlled group and experimental group(s) are kept under similar variables apart from the factor under study so that the effect or influence of that factor can be identified or determined.

A good example would be an experiment to test drug effects. The sample receiving the drug would be the experimental group while the sample receiving a placebo would be the controlled group. While all variables are kept similar (e.g. age, sex, etc.) the only difference between the groups is the taking of medication. If the controlled group and experimental group are showing similar results it means that the drug may be ineffective or is not showing significant therapeutic results.

Here is a key statement from the research group email to Marvin in the image below, “… we elected to dedicate an entire flow cell to the positive culture sample to maximize our recovery of the viral reads and not spend reads on sequencing a negative sample.”

WoL clarifies this ambiguous confusing statement as followed:

There were two “samples”. Where the samples come from and what they are, if described (very unlikely just like other predecessor virology papers), would be just a tiny piece of animal’s body part. Two pieces, which they called “culture”, are supposed to be compared-- one supposedly infected of “nCoV-2019” and another one healthy. They take tiny images of little particles (body cell debris of anything) under the microscope and put them all together (which they call sequencing) with a help of special a software program. They would come up with a scary looking picture as final product and tell people it’s the picture of the “living virus”, which is a compilation of tiny fragmented particles of dead cells. Not one image of the final product “a living virus” would be found by itself, which the critics like Dr. Tom Cowan have been demanding using the word isolated virus. This made-up image could come out of the negative sample and anything else too, but negative sample is not even touched in the “scientific” experiment, which made it unscientific. The reason was that negative sample could produce image that would look like it or anything else. In addition, the scientific experiment rules required the procedures/actions to repeat to see consistent results. The repetitions requirements are never done, for they would be getting different images even from their same so-called “positive sample”. Other much important descriptions missing was what classified positive and negative samples and how they were obtained. The positive sample was most likely produced by forceful injection method, not a natural infection via airborne or contact, which was always the case in all virology studies. This violates the definition of “controlled experiment.” They were supposed to have different groups and make comparisons among the groups, and also they were supposed to obtained the positive samples via natural interactions, such as airborne and touch, time 19:18. These will be the key arguments to win in court case. At time 58:25 Dr. Cowan comments directly about above issues in the video, pivoting around the keywords “controlled experiment”, “cellular debris” as virus culture (exosome).

War on Lies will like to focus on parts above (virus lies and global COVID fraud) instead of the entire video of Dr. Tom Cowan because the latter times are about different subjects in regards to other people asking him about other health topics and advice. Here are additional highlights on the virology topic from Dr. Cowan:

“Virologists don’t question what they are doing-- only old people who are near retired age, who have nothing to lose.”
He issued a very serious challenging statement to other high-ranking scholars in academic world who make these kinds of impactful nonsensical research papers to have a truthful debate-like conversation with him.

Lastly, Dr. Tom Cowan said that exercising is the best way or the only way to be healthy.

Feel free to email or call me about your thoughts in this topics or other ideas you might have, freedom@waronlies.org, +1-716-525-8089.

Here is the 1hr video by Dr. Tom Cowan, but the highlighted virology and COVID court-case winning argument info does not take up the entire one hour of the video. “Cellular debris from dead and dying cells are what they call [living] viruses.”

COVID Court-case Winning Argument Strategy

Golden USA Flag

✠ War 💣 on ☠ Lies ⚔, ORG

will publish articles free at WoL Files, a page at WoL, and at AAWKnight Foundation. You must identify yourself with full name, picture, email address, and phone number on your article. Please email me.

Back to WOL Library Main Page.