Cowan and Bryant jump into the muck of the US democide coverup; pledge allegiance to “data and evidence”
Introduction
In an unexpected and depressing development, trusted country doctor persona Tom Cowan, along with Michael Bryant of Health Freedom Defense Fund, got their hands dirty in the coverup of the US democide that killed a half-million people in 2020.
The topic of Cowan’s February 14 show was a recent article by Bryant, written under the pseudonym “HFDF Team,” entitled Lab Leak: An Elaborate Misdirection?
Don’t let the title fool you—most of Cowan’s audience never believed the lab leak hypothesis in the first place. The show actually had 3 other agendas, written between the lines:
Conceal the half-million unexplained deaths in the US in 2020.
Promote the idea that if any excess deaths occurred, they were caused by toxic treatment protocols, and only killed the poor, sick and elderly.
Dismiss the idea that a chemical weapon could have been used.
Uncompromising dedication to [hiding] “the data and evidence”
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will probably realize this agenda-between-the-lines didn’t allow much opportunity to present actual US mortality data—none at all, as a matter of fact. That’s particularly stunning, when you consider that Cowan and Bryant professed their dedication to “the data and evidence” more than 10 times during the show, repeating it like some kind of magic spell—and that’s not including the numerous times when “data” and “evidence” were mentioned individually. Here’s the breakdown, just in case you think I’m exaggerating:
“data and evidence” = 5
“the data and the evidence” = 2
“data evidence” = 1
“this data and this evidence” = 1
“data or evidence” = 2
I don’t think that degree of repetition happens by chance.
The audio clip below is a spoiler about Cowan’s conclusion, at around minute 34:00 of the show, that toxic treatment protocols were solely responsible for any excess deaths in 2020. Note Cowan’s high degree of certainty—this wasn’t just a hypothesis, or a theory—it was a clear and easy conclusion—doubly clear, in fact.
“This situation is very clearly and easily explained, by, just, ah, abusive and destructive policies in nursing homes, in hospitals, in the, in this New York City area, uh, and probably other nursing homes. It clearly would account for the, the, the…things that we were seeing—no pathogen, no chemical weapon needed to explain this.”
Cowan lectures us on the plague of sloppy thinking
It’s hard to believe folksy and wise doctor Cowan was wrong about his conclusion, especially after giving us the following lecture on the plague of sloppy thinking. The lecture began about 5 minutes into the show. It’s about how people inside and outside the “freedom community” are sloppy thinkers, irrational and illogical, anti-scientific, and therefore vulnerable to manipulation and abuse. That’s in contrast to Michael Bryant, said Cowan, who is a shining example of how to think (along with Cowan himself, I presume).
How did Cowan and Bryant arrive at the conclusion that any excess deaths were minimal, if they happened at all, and were caused solely by toxic treatment protocols? We’ll walk through it here, but in a nutshell:
First, they ignored all US mortality data after Spring 2020, as well as all mortality data outside of NYC. To Bryant’s credit, he clarified that twice—but both he and Cowan casually ignored the profound implications of their cherry picking.
Second, they pretty much ignored the NYC mortality data, too.
My new hypothesis
I think the Cowan-Bryant show is an important one to watch in full. Not only is it an excellent lesson in covert manipulation, it also led to the formation of my new hypothesis: The more times someone says “data and evidence,” the less of it they actually have.
That’s known in the world of statistics as an inverse correlation—meaning, as having data and evidence decreases, saying data and evidence increases. Correlation may or may not indicate causation—but in this case, I’d say the likelihood of cause and effect playing a role is pretty high.
No excess deaths prior to pandemic declaration
The first part of the show was about how there were no excess deaths anywhere in the world prior to the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) pandemic announcement on March 11, 2020. As far as I know, this is generally agreed—it is definitely true of US deaths—there was no apparent increase in deaths prior to mid-March 2020.
‘The virus’ hops, skips and jumps to…a hospital in Queens?
Bryant explained how ‘the virus’ came to America in the clip below (about 25:00 in the video)—it “hopped, skipped and jumped,” he said, to Elmhurst hospital in Queens, NY. Both Cowan and Bryant joked about Queens being the locus of the Corona virus. I checked Bryant’s paper to see where this narrative about ‘the virus’ targeting a particular hospital in Queens came from—it linked to a NY Times article.
In fact, the links in Bryant’s paper didn’t seem to contain much of anything in the way of data or evidence. The closest he came was linking to an international summary of “COVID deaths,” which gave information such as the average age of “COVID death” in various countries.
In other words, Bryant had access to detailed mortality data for every US county, in every state, in the entire United States, totally free, at his fingertips in the CDC WONDER database, but he used a NY Times article as his source instead, and structured a narrative around it, which he seemed to think was witty and/or insightful. This is the stunning example of superior thinking we are supposed to trust and emulate, according to wise country doctor Cowan. God help us all.
Some actual data
Since Cowan and Bryant both focused on NYC, let’s look at the official mortality data from that region from the CDC WONDER database.
I didn’t read the Times article Bryant linked to, but it is true that Queens county had the highest increase in deaths in April 2020, at an incredible 553%. However, Kings and Bronx counties in New York, and Hudson and Essex counties in New Jersey, were close behind—all had increases in death of more than 400% in April 2020.
The left side of the graphic below shows the percent change in monthly deaths in all NY and NJ counties in 2020, compared to 2019. 25 counties in the NYC metropolitan area had increases in death of more than 100% in April 2020—these counties are at the top, and the monthly changes in death for those counties are highlighted with a red-yellow-green gradient, with the highest increases shown in red, and the lowest increases in green.
On the top right of the graphic, there’s a map with a red circle marking the location of the 25 counties where deaths increased the most. Below it is a map showing the location of the counties that were most affected. NJ was enlarged to show the county detail.
See Note 3 at this link for the citation for this data. Run this saved search in the WONDER database (you must agree to the TOS to run the search).
The chart below shows weekly all-cause deaths from 2018-2021 in New York City (in red); in the NYC metropolitan area (in orange); and in New Jersey and New York state (in yellow). 50,000 extra people died in the NYC metro area over 8 weeks in Spring 2020, after which deaths returned to normal.
See Note 1 at this link for the citations for this data. Run this search for weekly deaths in all counties in NJ and NY state. Run this search for weekly deaths in the Top 25 counties. Run this search for weekly deaths in NYC proper. (You must agree to the TOS to run these searches.)
Cowan and Bryant say toxic treatment protocols fully explain this pattern of deaths. Now, I don’t dispute the possibility of toxic treatment protocols impacting mortality—not at all. However, it would be impossible for toxic treatments alone to cause the pattern of deaths we see here, IMO.
In order for this pattern of deaths to be consistent with toxic treatment protocols being the sole or primary cause of excess deaths, the protocols would have had to be put in place in mid-March, kept in place for 8 weeks while killing 50,000 people in a narrow geographic region, then terminated by mid-May 2020. So, I have a few questions:
If those events occurred, given the number of dead, isn’t that more consistent with an intentional mass killing (a democide), than with inadvertent iatrogenic effects of well-intentioned medical treatments?
If those events occurred, a directive must have gone out in mid-May to all medical treatment facilities in and around NYC to cease these toxic protocols. Do we have a copy of it? If there was no such directive, why did the excess deaths abruptly stop?
Why were there no similar mass casualty events from toxic COVID19 treatment protocols elsewhere in the US in Spring 2020?
Why were there subsequent death waves elsewhere in the US in 2020, if the cause of excess deaths was identified in NYC in April 2020, and the toxic protocols stopped?
In addition, we have the problem of the places people died. Deaths at home more than doubled in April 2020 in the states that had more than a 60% increase in deaths (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York). How could excess deaths at home be attributed to toxic treatment protocols?
A little more actual data
NYC was far from the only region impacted by high excess deaths in 2020. There were several more death waves after the NYC mass casualty event, shown in the chart below of weekly US deaths in 2019 (in brown) compared to weekly deaths in 2020-2022 (in blue). These waves affected different states at different times, and different counties within each state. This resulted in about a million unexplained all-cause deaths in 2020 and 2021.
See this section of the CVax Risk page for the source of this data, as well as a table of excess deaths by state and month in 2020-2021.
The fake data hypothesis with no data or evidence
Baby Panda
In the following clip, Cowan and Bryant led us to believe the “fake mortality data” hypothesis is a promising one. It’s not. The hypothesis came out months ago, and there is still no real evidence to support it, so it’s pretty much dead in the water, IMO.
As usual, the narrative presented was vague, with no specifics about basic issues, like which counties/states/federal agencies may have been involved in the criminal conspiracy to alter government records. Keep in mind that death records are kept at the federal, state and county level—and my understanding is that, in NYC, investigations have been done that show all mortality databases are consistent. Defining the boundaries of a massive fraud like this is really a starting point—not something I’d expect to still remain vague months after the first publication about the fake data hypothesis.
Excess deaths were nationwide in 2020, in different states and counties at different times, resulting in 500,000 unexplained deaths nationwide. Deaths more than doubled in April 2020 in 25 counties in the NYC metropolitan area. There’s no logical reason to draw a magic line around the heart of NYC, and pretend it’s unique from everywhere else.
There should be extensive evidence from the demographics of the deaths by now—either indicating, or not indicating, potential fraud. The WONDER database is free and open to the general public, and has some sophisticated search capabilities for things like age, place of death, cause of death, and much more. To the best of my knowledge, no one has made an effort to utilize those vast search capabilities to look for anomalies that could potentially point to fraud or fabrication of data. Nor have I seen any plausible explanations for how such a fraud was carried out under our noses, in a database that is open to the general public 24/7. I wrote about these and other related issues at some length here, starting about half-way through.
The fact that NYC does not allow general access to death certificates is nothing new, and it’s not unique in the US.
Besides, why fabricate deaths to incite fear, only to cover them up? But I guess Bryant and Cowan can’t comment on that.
Chemical weapons? Nah.
Throughout the interview, Bryant seemed scattered, and fumbled for the right words a lot. In contrast, Cowan seemed well-organized, and usually revised and edited Bryant’s scattered points into a persuasive summary—like an intellectual wing man, helping him look smarter.
Both appeared to be closely following monitors located front left. Bryant was wearing glasses, making his reactions hard to judge sometimes, but there were several instances where he appeared to see something on his monitor that discombobulated him, causing him to lose his train of thought.
Clip from about 30:00 in the orignal video.
IMO, this video clip from about minute 30:00 shows one such instance, shortly after Bryant mentioned chemical weapons the second time. Bryant claimed “the data and evidence” did not fit the chemical weapon hypothesis, while Cowan nodded and mumbled his agreement, “Yeah, right”—although there was no discussion about why it didn’t fit.
Chemical weapons were mentioned 3 times during the show—twice by Bryant, and once after that by Cowan—each time, the possibility was quickly dismissed, after no discussion on the subject whatsoever.
Naturally, this weirdness made me curious about what Bryant’s article said about chemical weapons—and guess what? It didn’t mention chemical weapons at all. So, this topic was added to the agenda sometime in the week before the show—very interesting.
Also interesting is a series of 10 questions Bryant posed in his paper, about why the theory of a lab leak doesn’t make any sense. For 7 of those questions, one possible answer that could explain the facts is a CHEMICAL WEAPON. Can Bryant really have been oblivious to that when he wrote his paper?
But Dr. Cowan was just being a polite host!
No, he wasn’t—he was selling Bryant’s material, by summarizing and restating it in a persuasive way. But if you’re not convinced, listen to this last clip.
I haven’t done transcripts for a lot of clips here, because they are very time-consuming. But I took the time to do it for this clip, even though it’s a longer one, because I wanted to make absolutely sure I understood what happened here—it was an interesting glitch in the script.
Bryant forgot whether he was supposed to have seen the NYC hospital and ER data from Spring 2020. At first he said he’d seen the data, and it showed there was no major medical event in NYC. Then he said he wanted to see the hospital and ER data, so if anyone had it, he’d like to take a look. Then he got one of those discombobulating messages on his monitor, and switched gears, saying he’d seen the data, and it showed there was no medical emergency. Then Cowan stepped in to rehabilitate Bryant’s credibility, saying he’d seen the data Bryant was talking about, and it did indeed show there was no medical emergency in NYC.
I went to Bryant’s paper, in search of the mysterious appearing and disappearing hospital and ER data. I think you can guess what I found—nothing.
To add to the already weird strangeness in this clip, Cowan suggested that illness in Spring 2020 may have been psychosomatic—and bizarrely declared that if there was no medical emergency in NYC in Spring 2020, then there was no medical emergency, ever. He didn’t bother to explain his reasoning—if any.
Anyway, listen for yourself, and draw your own conclusions—I’m not telling anyone what to think. We all have enough people doing that to us already.
Cowan: “You know, one could imagine that the, ah, a certain segment of the healthy people had a kind of, ah, almost like propaganda or fear-induced, ah, like, illness, you know, that, that they would claim this was different, and that they needed early treatment, and so, you will probably have people claiming that, “I’m different,” you know, “I got sick, and I needed early treatment.” But what you’re saying is if you just look at the data, you don’t see even that phenomena happen.”
Bryant: Yeah, so, let’s, let’s take that story and run with it a little bit. Wouldn’t we then see, um, hospital admissions rise, wouldn’t we see emergency department visits rise, and we, we didn’t see that—we saw quite the opposite.
Cowan: Ah, just say, say a little bit more about that, um…
Bryant: So, l-let, let’s just say that, um, let’s even put the lab leak, ah, hypothesis aside for just a little bit, and let’s, let’s say that um, um, there was even some sort of, ah, chemical assault, or, or there was some, um, psychologically induced, um, ah, ah, medical event that occurred. Now, I’m, I’m speaking specifically again on the spring 2020, um, time frame. Um, would, would we not see that in hospital data, would we not see that in emergency department visits. And, and, uh, 911 calls—this, this kind of data. Right? So, um, I, I’d like to see that data, if someone has that, we’re, what, what a…we have seen is quite the opposite. You will see that emergency department visits, um, ah, were dropping to all-time lows in, in most all places. The same with, ah, hospital, ah, visit data, and, and yes, people were being told to stay away from, from the hospitals, but certainly if we were having some sort of cata… (cuts out) …the type we were told occurred, we would that, that, ah, ah, that data wouldn’t, couldn’t possibly look the way it does.
Cowan: Right. And I’ve, I’ve actually seen your, the, your data, and your, ah, information you’re talking about, and I think, again, correct me if I’m wrong, but, what you’re saying is, no matter what you tell people, if there was some major event happening, there would be increased utilization of ICUs, ERs, you know, across, sort, more or less uniform across the country, it wouldn’t be geographic boundaries or rivers or (I guess that’s a geographic boundary), or poverty, or who has Medicare, or, who, who this or that, and in fact you see the opposite.
Bryant: That’s correct. Yeah, I guess the one thing we did see a, a massive uptick in was the, ah, ah, utilization of PCR test kits (chuckling). No, the data and the evidence shows, um, that, what, whatever story you want, one wants to concoct, um, the data and the evidence do not support the, um, belief that there was a massive medical event, um, ah, out in the general population, in, in Spring of 2020.
Cowan: Yeah. Which is essentially what this whole thing is based on, right? If it didn’t happen then, it didn’t happen ever. Cause that’s…
Bryant: That’s, that’s a very, very important point. You know, that we could, ah, narrow that down, too—you, you could say, um, this whole event was sold to people and this is why, you know, myself and some other colleagues focus so much on those 2 places (Italy and NY). This entire event was sold to people based on what, um, the media was screaming to everybody happened in Northern Italy, what the, what the media was screaming was happening to everybody in NYC. You take those 2 places away from this, this, um, ah, control narrative, this, this big scamdemic, and the entire story collapses.
Closing thoughts
There is so much more in this video I could have talked about, but I just got tired of it—I encourage you to watch the whole thing. It was depressing to see a man whose work I’ve admired covering up a half-million US deaths. Cowan is obviously very skilled at what he’s doing, and probably convinced a lot of people of the 3 items on his secret agenda.
Bryant, not so much—kind of a loose cannon, I suspect, who probably would have gone off on a rant about chemical weapons if he hadn’t been reigned in. Let’s hope it happens someday, and I don’t miss it.