All Episodes
Previous Next
April 21, 2020 - David Icke
35:53
Dr Andrew Kaufman exposing the 'Covid-19' magic trick - the sleight of hand that transformed socie..
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
🎵Music🎵 🎵Intro Music🎵
Hello and welcome everyone.
I'm Dr. Andrew Kaufman and I have a special treat for you today.
I have a new PowerPoint slide presentation and today I'm going to be talking to you about Cox postulates.
I know many of you have been asking questions about that.
I'm going to share my screen now.
I'm sorry about that one.
I chose the wrong thing.
So here we go.
As I said, the title of today's Presentation is Cox Postulates, Have They Been Proven for Viruses?
Or The Rooster in the River of Rats?
And please visit me at my website, andrewkauffmanmd.com, where you can request consultations or interviews.
You can ask questions, leave general comments or other feedback, or just in general, get in touch with me.
And the name of my YouTube series is called Medicamentum Authentica.
And it's on my YouTube channel under Andrew Kaufman, and I also have a channel on Bitshoot, Dr.
Andrew Kaufman, so please find me there as well.
Okay, so let's talk about what Cox postulates are.
So there are four postulates, and these are some common sense rules that were formulated originally in the late 1800s to provide a way to determine if a microorganism or germ causes a disease.
So the first postulate is, the microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
Pretty common sense.
Number two, the microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism or a person and grown in a pure culture.
Three, the cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
So once you've isolated it from a sick person and purified it, then you can put it into a healthy person and cause the same disease.
And fourth, you must be able to re-isolate that organism from the person that you made sick.
And if you can do all these steps, you've proved pretty much conclusively that that microorganism or germ causes the disease.
I came across this article that some of my viewers sent me, and it claims that Cox postulates have been fulfilled for the SARS virus.
This was published back in 2003 in Nature, which is one of the most prestigious scientific journals.
This is really important to point out because I have been saying that Cox postulates have not been fulfilled, and this is also important because the SARS virus is SARS-CoV-1.
In other words, the other virus that supposedly is related to SARS-CoV-2, which is another name for COVID-19.
So this is the precursor virus to the current COVID-19 situation, so it'll give you a little bit of a historical background.
So I want to point out that right here, just between the title and what they say in the body of this article, already they're misleading you.
Because in the second paragraph they wrote, according to Cox postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral disease.
So it's not Cox postulates, it's Rivers criteria, which is different.
And they should have put that in the title, but they're misleading you to make you think that Cox postulates have been fulfilled.
According to Rivers, there are six criteria to establish virus as a cause of disease.
And I'm going to tell you what those six criteria are.
And I'm going to compare and contrast that to Cox postulates.
So you'll see that the color coding tells you which matches up with which.
So you can see that there is quite a bit of overlap.
So the one that they did not, that rivers did not require was that the microorganism is found in ill
but not healthy people.
So that seemingly was too difficult to prove for rivers, but I feel that this is a major shortcoming
because if you can't find a virus in a sick person with the disease that you're looking at,
then how can you really say that it causes that virus?
However, I'm going to give it a pass because they're using the river's criteria,
so I will apply the river's criteria.
And you can see that it definitely requires isolation of the virus from a diseased host, just like Cox criteria.
And also, there's a slight difference in how it's cultivated because viruses are not living organisms.
They can't reproduce on their own, so you cannot grow them in a pure culture.
So, for example, if you isolated, let's say, Staphylococcus from a sick person, you could grow that Staphylococcus in a pure culture that will only be Staphylococcus cells.
But with a virus, since they can't reproduce and they're not alive, you can't grow them in a pure culture of just virus particles.
So you need to have host cells.
So that would be cells basically from the person who is ill or the source of the virus in the first place.
Now there's the third criteria of rivers which is not in Cox postulates which is proof of filterability and this is important because the virus particles are very very tiny in the nanometer scale which is a billionth of a meter and so If they have a filter with very, very small pores, much smaller than the masks people are wearing, only the particles that are considered to be a virus can pass through and all of the other cells like the host cells or any bacteria or fungal cells that are in the mix will get filtered out.
So this is a way to purify the viral particle.
Number four, you must be able to take that isolated particle or virus and put it into a healthy host and cause the same disease.
So that's the same as the third criteria of Cox Postulates.
And this is the criterion that is the most important for proving that this agent causes a disease.
You can't say that it causes a disease without this step because before that, even if you find it in people with the disease, it's just an association.
Or a correlation. And that does not prove causation.
And I'll give you an example.
Let's say that you show up at a fire and you see there are firefighters there.
Now, you can't assume that the firefighters caused the fire just because they're there.
They're just associated with the fire.
And actually, they're doing the opposite.
They're putting out the fire.
So you can be really confused without this step.
Then the fifth criterion is re-isolation of the virus.
So that's from the person that you produced the disease in.
You can once again isolate that particle or agent from that person.
And then finally, the detection of a specific immune response to the virus.
And this is much more difficult to prove because of the specificity issue, but I'm not going to really cover that very much during this talk because it is, in my opinion, the least important.
So, notice what is not in Rivers' criteria.
There is nothing about genetic material, DNA, or RNA. So in other words, you don't even have to look at the genetic material in order to prove these criteria.
And at least formally, the genetic material or specific sequences does not have a role in proving that a virus causes a disease.
And I'm following this is what is specified in the authors of the Nature paper.
So I went and looked at Rivers' article from 1937, where he laid out these six criteria, and I found a few interesting quotes to help us learn a little bit more detail what he was saying.
So the first quote, Now it is possible to bring excellent evidence that an organism is the cause of a malady without complete satisfaction of Koch's postulates.
So basically, he's saying that you can skip the steps that are not included in his criteria and still prove that a virus causes a disease.
Next quote is, particularly those diseases caused by viruses, the blind adherence to Koch's postulates may act as a hindrance instead of an aid.
Well, I think this indicates that he may have been looking for a little bit of a shortcut, that maybe it was difficult to perform some of the steps, and this makes it a little bit easier to prove a virus is a cause of disease.
And it's not good to let your outcome affect your reasoning when determining these things, but I'll still accept the Rivers' criteria as valid.
He said it's obvious that Cox postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases.
Now, granted, this was in 1937, but up to that time, that was certainly as true as it is today.
He also said, in the first place, it is not obligatory to demonstrate the presence of a virus in every case of disease produced by it.
Now, I really don't understand the reasoning behind this, because if the virus is not present, then how could you say it caused the disease?
But once again, I'll accept these criteria since this is what the author has laid out.
And the last quote, viruses, whether they are parasites or fabrications of an autocatalytic processes, are intimately associated with host cells.
So this is really important because it indicates a degree of uncertainty about the nature of viruses.
And when he says that they are fabrications of autocatalytic processes, what I think that means is what's called apoptotic bodies.
So our cells undergo this programmed cell death called apoptosis or apoptosis.
And this happens in response to various things.
It could just be a natural occurrence.
But if there is a major illness, then cells might undergo this process.
And they basically fragment into little blebs.
And these little bodies, I think, are what he's calling the fabrications of an autocatalytic process.
But that's very different from a virus because that actually comes from our own cells rather than from outside.
And he definitely points out the intimate association with the host cells which is very important in the experimental methods that I'll get into.
He also said something very important about how you prove the criterion where you put the isolated virus into a healthy person and cause the same disease.
And what he said is, by means of inoculation of material obtained with patients with the natural disease.
Okay, so not something made in a laboratory or from a laboratory, but from another patient with the natural disease.
That's very important.
He also said if the inoculated animals become sick or die in a characteristic manner, which means having the same symptoms as the original disease, And if the disease in them can be transmitted from animal to animal by means of inoculations with blood or emulsions of involved tissue, free from ordinary microbes or rickettsiae.
So in other words, give them a bodily fluid that has been filtered so that there are no other organisms in that that can confuse the issue.
It has to be purified.
One is fairly confident that the malady is the experimental animals is induced by a virus.
So basically what he's saying is if you apply his criteria, it's not certain, but you can be fairly confident that the virus causes that disease.
So that is not very inspiring of confidence in me, but nonetheless that is what he said about these criteria.
So in other words, even if all six of the criteria are satisfied, that only leads you to be fairly confident.
Not conclusive, not certain, not 100%, just fairly confident.
Okay, so let's get back to this Nature article now that we've reviewed the background information.
And it goes on to say that the first three Rivers criteria, which is isolation of the virus from a diseased host, Number two, cultivation in host cells.
And number three, proof of filterability, have been met for the SARS coronavirus by several groups.
And you see at the bottom these footnotes, 2, 3, 4, 5.
So I'm going to go through, and they are also in the article here at the top, if I can put my cursor there.
My cursor is visible here.
So two, three, four.
Oh, sorry. This is from a different paper.
This is from the one before.
So it's at the bottom of this.
Two, three, four, five. But I'm going to give all the references in each slides because I went through all those papers.
And number two is actually the Rivers paper, I believe.
But let's see. So before we get into those papers, I just want to go over the definition of isolate, because I think that this has been confused by some of the scientists as to what it means and what procedure they're using.
So this is from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, and it says, especially to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state.
So in other words, nothing else is mixed with it.
Very key. So here is a method that's been documented by many.
It's in standard microbiology textbook or lab textbook.
And it has been used extensively to isolate viruses from lower organisms such as bacteria, amoeba, and algae.
And what you do here is you take the sample or the body fluid, which is in the upper left corner here, This is the body fluid so like in the case of SARS and of COVID-19 it would be lung fluid is the most common thing that is used for this purpose and what you do is take that fluid and you put it through very very small filters.
And this accomplishes what I described earlier that separates out the tiny little particles from any bacteria.
In this photograph here, these big rods are actually bacteria and the little dots are supposedly viral particles.
So putting them through this filter, you leave the bacteria behind and just collect the little particles, little dots in the filtrate.
Then you take this filtrate and you use centrifuge with a density gradient solution.
So you put the density gradient liquid in the tube and then add the filtrate and spin it.
And what it does is it forms a band of the particles because they all have the same density.
And then you could easily take a pipette and suck those particles out And then you can look at them under the electron microscope, and you can do chemical characterization on them, and you can extract genetic material if you want to look at that.
But the key thing is that going through these steps, you've completely purified the particles directly from the sick patient specimen without mixing any adulterants or other things with it.
And so that is really key for this isolation step.
Now here's what the scientists that are publishing articles saying they isolated a virus are doing.
So they start with the same sample, the lung fluid, but what they do first is they just take the whole thing, they don't filter it or purify it in any way, but they add some enzymes that dissolve the membrane so it releases all the genetic material that may be inside of cells or particles into the free solution.
And then they do is put in some PCR probes, which will amplify various pieces of genetic material, and they can then sequence that genetic material and characterize it in many ways.
But this has nothing to do with Rivers' criteria.
As I said before, there was nothing mentioned about genetic material.
So if you look at the other pathway...
That they do is they take that fluid.
They may or may not filter it.
Some of the methods are not described in very much detail.
So they leave out this step.
It's hard to tell if they've done it or not.
And then they mix this body fluid with non-host cells.
So they often buy commercially prepared mammalian cell cultures, like a very common one are Vero cells, which are monkey kidney cells.
So they basically mix this with some kind of cell culture and often they add antibiotics almost in every case that I've seen where there's detailed methods written up.
And this is really important because the antibiotics Actually induce exosomes.
And if you've seen my previous talk, or if you haven't, please take a look at it.
You'll see that exosomes are particles secreted by our own cells, and they help us heal from disease and communicate with each other inside our body, allow different cells to communicate.
And All mammalian cells make exosomes and various things cause the cells to make more exosomes or induction of exosomes and one of those is antibiotics and there are several papers that describe this.
It's very well known.
So they're basically mixing this bodily fluid with a mixture of cells and antibiotics that's making exosomes.
And then what they do is they may or may not purify the particles out of that mixture.
They often just keep them mixed with the cells and then look at them under the microscope and occasionally they purify them.
But there is no way to tell if the particles that they have identified after this procedure are from this tissue culture with antibiotics or if they are from this lung fluid.
And since they set up a procedure that always results in exosome induction, there are going to be particles that are exosomes in there for sure that look just like viral particles.
So I think this is where the major confusion comes to play.
So, here are the four papers that I mentioned that are footnoted that supposedly satisfy the first three criteria of rivers.
So, Putanin, Drosten, Keziachek, and Paris.
And please forgive me if I'm mispronouncing any of those names.
And these are all about the SARS coronavirus from 2003.
So let's look at the Putanan paper first.
So they did not isolate any virus, the first step.
And here's a quote from the article.
Routine direct virologic examination of all respiratory and stool specimens received from 9 of the 10 patients was completed, yielding negative results.
This included negative electron microscopical examination.
So they actually followed the right procedure here to do this, that they took the lung and stool specimens in this case and actually did try to purify those and look at those under a microscope, but they did not see anything.
So that was a negative isolation.
As I described, they did obtain genetic material, as they do in almost all these studies.
The second step, they did not cultivate any fluid or particles in host cells.
Instead, they used monkey Vero cells, which, as I described, introduces exosomes.
And they did not prove filterability.
So what they did was they performed all of these different tests, mostly genetic tests or antibody tests, To screen out for the presence of other bacteria or viruses that are known to cause disease.
And in this case, they actually found metanumovirus in four of the nine patients, which definitely confused the issue.
So once again, in the Putinan paper, they did not prove any of the three criterion as claimed.
So let's look at the Drosten paper.
And once again, they did not isolate any virus.
They did find, interestingly, particles that look like another virus called paramyxovirus in one specimen, but not in the other specimens.
Once again, they did not cultivate any particles in host cells.
Instead, they used Vero cells again.
And once again, they did not prove filterability.
So the first two papers have not proved any of the criterion yet.
Let's go to the third one, the Keziachek paper.
So once again, they did not isolate a virus.
Once again, they did not cultivate in host cells.
Instead, they used several different kinds of cells here.
I'm not sure what all of these are, but they definitely did not come from the host.
And they also tried to inoculate mice with this mixture.
Once again, they did not prove filterability.
So, so far, nobody has proven any of the criteria.
Let's go to the Paris paper.
This is the last one. Once again, for the fourth time, they did not isolate any virus.
They didn't culture in host cells.
Instead, they used fetal, rhesus, monkey, kidney cells.
And once again, they did not prove filterability.
So none of the first three criteria were satisfied by any one of those four papers, as stated in the article.
Let's go back to the article to look at the remaining three criteria, and here's what they said.
The authors of this article have tested for the three remaining criteria, which are the production of comparable disease in the original host species or a related one, re-isolation of the virus, and detection of a specific immune response to the virus.
So, since they didn't satisfy the first criteria, they didn't have anything isolated, it would be next to impossible to satisfy these three, but let's see what they said they did.
So, criterion 4 produced the same disease in the host.
So they did not obtain the material from patients with the natural disease.
Instead, they used the virus that was cultured in monkey kidney cells.
So once again, those cells would be producing exosomes, and the virus was never isolated, so it's not really clear what exactly they're inoculating them with at all.
However, Out of those two macaques, and they only did this with two, only one of them had respiratory symptoms.
So in other words, even if you say that they really did inoculate them with something they isolated from a sick person, they didn't cause the same disease in both of the hosts, only in one of them.
And the other one, they had a skin rash.
And even when they examined their lungs at autopsy, because of course they killed these animals right after the experiment, They found different findings.
One had extensive lung pathology and the other one did not.
So, Criterions 5 and 6, re-isolation of the virus and specific immunity.
So, they did not re-isolate the virus.
Instead, what they did was genetic testing.
And once again, they took secretions from those macaques and mixed them with Vero cells in a culture with antibiotics.
Just as the original procedure so there was no isolation in that and they did say that there was an antibody response but they did not describe the specificity of that or tested against other antigens to determine that.
So in conclusion, they met zero of the six criteria.
So let me just summarize, because there are several misrepresentations in that article.
So first, in the title, they said they satisfied Cox postulates, but in the second paragraph, they said actually they used Rivers' revision of the Cox postulates, which are distinct.
And then they claimed that four papers satisfied the first three criteria, but upon closer examination of those papers, not one criteria for any of those papers was satisfied.
And then they claimed that they satisfied the remaining three criteria, but once again upon closer examination of their procedures, they did not satisfy any of them.
So this is what I would consider a fraudulent paper because they cannot provide any evidence to back up any of the claims they made in their paper, and it's very, very misleading.
So I thought I would look at some of these Rivers' criteria for COVID-19 because this is the most relevant thing to what's going on now and what I've been mostly spending my time studying and talking about.
And it would be very easy to apply these to the papers that have described COVID-19, which, by the way, you know, is based on the original SARS coronavirus.
So these are the three papers that have been published on 123.
And then the fourth one is a group from Canada that has reported to some news media that they have also isolated this COVID-19 virus, but they have not published yet.
So there's much less information about their specific methods, but there was enough to know what's going on.
So let's look at...
I'm sorry. So out of what I found is that none of the studies met the first three criteria.
No studies tried to address criterion 4 or 5, which is inoculating the isolated particle into a healthy host and causing the disease or re-isolating it from that person.
So this was just not done at all, not attempted.
So if...
Criterion 4 and 5 were never attempted.
You can already, just from that, conclude that it has not been proven to be fairly confident even that this is a cause of any illness.
But let's look a little bit closer.
So the Zhao paper, they didn't isolate any virus.
Once again, they obtained genetic material as described in the previous procedure.
Number two, they did not cultivate in host cells.
They used, once again, Vero cells and this other HUH7 cells, but they only did this in one out of the seven patients, and they did not prove filterability.
And here's what they wrote in their conclusions.
This study provides evidence of an association between the disease and the presence of the
virus.
However, there are still many urgent questions to be answered.
We need more clinical data and samples to confirm if this virus is indeed the etiology
agent for this epidemic.
Etiology means cause.
So basically they said we need more studies to prove causation.
This only provides evidence of an association.
And there are still many questions to answer.
So the authors of this article were very honest and understood the limitations of their research methods and put an appropriate conclusion.
They did something else interesting, and I want to just talk about the genetic material for a moment, because this is what they really say is the reason why they've identified it, and it's also the reason or the basis for developing this diagnostic test.
The RT-PCR test is basically just tests this genetic sequence.
So the way that they said that it's a coronavirus is because they tested the sequence of this RNA that they can't identify the source because they didn't purify anything.
And they said it shares just under 80% sequence identity to the SARS-CoV-1, which I was talking about earlier.
Now, 80% may sound like a lot, but I did some digging and found that humans share 96%, so 16% more of their genetic sequence with chimpanzees.
So if you were to say that 80% sequence identity means that it's a coronavirus, well, you'd be saying that if you had a DNA sample from me and compared it to chimpanzee sequences, you would say that I was a chimpanzee.
which clearly I am not.
So let's move on to the next of the three papers.
So the Zhu paper. Once again, no virus was isolated.
They obtained genetic material.
They didn't cultivate in host cells and this time they used lung cancer cells.
Now they don't call it that in the paper.
What they say is that they are lung epithelial cells taken from biopsies of lung cancer patients.
Now I don't think it takes too much to realize that there are going to be cancer cells in there and one thing that we know about cancer cells is that they make lots of exosomes.
So this would provide particles that could be seen under the microscope and confused with other particles.
And once again, they did not prove filterability.
And this is what they said in their conclusion.
So once again, an honest author.
Although our study does not fulfill Cox postulates, so they acknowledge that outright, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019 NCOV in the Wuhan outbreak.
So We have association and we have implication.
So this is nowhere near causation.
This is preliminary findings that basically suggest that you need to do some more studies and actually apply the river's criteria if you want to prove causation.
Now, the third paper is a little bit more problematic, but I'll get to that in a second.
But if you look at the methods, once again, they did not isolate any virus.
Once again, they did not cultivate in host cells.
They used viral cells and antibiotics and did not prove filterability.
However, oh sorry, I want to describe the McMaster team first because, like I said, they don't have a published paper, so I can't say a lot, but they did describe their methods a little bit on their website, and once again, they did not isolate a virus, and they also did not cultivate in host cells.
They're using some other kind of mammalian cells, which is the same procedure every group is using.
But back to the Kim paper, because the Kim paper has something really problematic.
And this doesn't come from the conclusion.
It comes from the introduction section.
And in their introductory section, they said basically that a new coronavirus was identified
as the causative agent of this unexplained pneumonia in January 2020.
Now this is a very bold statement.
And as you saw, the conclusions of the other two papers, which came before this, didn't
make any such statements based on their research.
So this is reference number seven, is where this declarative statement about it being
a causative agent comes from.
And that reference is listed at the bottom of this slide.
And interestingly, it's not a study that is trying to isolate or identify a virus.
It's a study that's looking at the full sequence of the genetic material of this so-called virus.
And comparing it with evolutionary analysis.
So in other words, with other species or viruses, sequences found in other species.
So in other words, the science of that article would not be able to prove anything about causation.
So I went and looked at that article.
And interestingly, it doesn't say anything about causation anywhere.
In the introduction, it says that a novel coronavirus is associated with human-to-human transition and severe human infection.
So once again, association is not causation.
And in its conclusion, it talks about the genetic features of the virus and their potential association with virus characteristics and virulence in humans remain to be elucidated.
So in other words, there's some kind of association, we need more research, we haven't proven anything.
So how did they say this?
They must have just basically flat out lied.
They made this up. They said it's a causative agent.
They gave a reference, and it's not in the reference.
And in my opinion, this should be censured.
I mean, this is a serious ethical violation here to make such an important claim.
All of the world policies are based upon this claim that it is a causative agent.
And they cannot reference any science to back that up whatsoever.
If we go on and look again at that McMaster University article, which is on the university website, they also make a bold claim, perhaps following on Kim's paper, saying that this new coronavirus set in motion the pandemic.
So that's even a bigger claim than it being the cause of an illness.
So you see, once a rumor is put out there, then other people are going to adopt it, and then it's going to become in people's minds the truth, even though there is nothing to back it up.
So, just to summarize the whole rumor mill thing, we have the papers that actually did the studies, and they claim that there's an association or an implication of the virus in the illness, far from any declarative statement about causation.
Then, in the third paper, it was changed to causative agent, and then it was changed to set in motion the pandemic, so stronger and stronger statements.
And no evidence was provided at all to back up those statements.
Just flat-out lies.
So, I'd like to conclude from everything I talked about, that one, despite the claim of satisfying Koch's postulates, not one of the six Rivers criteria was met for SARS. Not one.
That's in 2003.
None of the river's criteria were met for COVID-19, except possibly specific immunity, the least important of the six criteria.
And rumors and lies placed COVID-19 as the cause of a pandemic with no proof.
No proof whatsoever.
Just want to highlight the players here.
And please do connect with me at my website, andrewkauffmanmd.com.
▲
Export Selection