All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
58:57
Virus Isolation...Is it Real? - Dr. Andrew Kaufman Responds to Jeremy Hammond
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
I'm your host, Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
Earlier today, I received notice that a new article came out written by Dr. Joe Mercola stating that there is actually a virus called SARS-CoV-2.
I will be reviewing that paper point by point with Tom Cowan this Friday on his webinar, so please do look for that.
But on this article website, there is also a video by a journalist named Jeremy Hammond Who also expands on this issue and expresses his opinion that there is a real virus and he mentions me specifically by name.
So I thought I would go through his argument and tell you what I think of his points on a point by point basis so that you can determine for yourself.
But let me just introduce a little bit because in the beginning of the video interview, which I will not play for you.
Now, Mr. Hammond reports how important it is to only speak provable truths or facts.
In other words, to have a rigorous scientific approach and to avoid conspiracy theories because they would lessen the credibility of people in the health freedom movement.
And I think it's time that we move beyond that language and realize that there actually is a conspiracy here, a provable conspiracy, where all the governments of the world are acting in concert to adopt the same policies, which is really the definition of a conspiracy.
Now, whether we can point the finger to certain individuals being behind all of the efforts, that is a separate matter.
But I'd like to focus on the science today and only the science.
So I'm not going to call any arguments stupid or ignorant or use any names like that or insult anyone.
I'm simply going to look at an argument presented and then give my opinion on that and present further evidence if necessary.
So I'd like to start my screen share now.
And we can then take a look.
Uh, this video, and I've cued it up to the time when they start speaking about the virus, so I'm gonna play a clip, then pause it, have some discussion, and then play more, so you can see everything that's going on.
What about, what about this claim that, um, that there is no virus or that the virus has not been isolated?
Yeah, that is the argument that's being made.
So they say that the virus has not been isolated and therefore there's no evidence of its existence.
Yeah, this is probably my biggest pet peeve.
Because it's just this claim is such a nuisance and I've been, you know, I see it among my own reader community, you know.
That many of my readers are legitimately confused by this, and a lot of them, like, have been convinced of this, that the virus hasn't been isolated.
It's so superficial.
I mean, would you just scratch the surface of this?
It's just nonsense.
So, essentially, what some of these people who are promoting this claim are doing is they're just kind of redefining what isolation means.
And sort of saying, well, we have this dictionary definition, we have this layman's understanding of what isolation means.
And that's not what scientists do.
We somehow had the technology to just extract the virus from a patient and suspend it in a vacuum where it's completely separated from everything else around it.
And of course, maybe someday they'll have the technology, but scientists are limited by the technology that we have currently.
All right, that's excellent.
I'd like to speak to that point.
I'll stop my share for just a second so that you can see my face.
So, a couple of points he made there.
One is, he said that the people in my camp actually redefined the definition of isolation, but it's the other way around.
So, we are talking about the actual definition of the word.
Isolation is a word in the English language and it has a certain definition.
Now, the virologists are the ones that change the meaning of the word from separating from other things to meaning combined with other things in a foreign cell culture.
So it really, he has a little bit backwards.
Okay, and then the second point, someday we'll have the technology to purify, actually purify viral particles.
Well, this is where he hasn't looked carefully at the literature, because we've been able to purify particles equivalent to viruses for many, many decades.
And the traditional method that was originally used since at least the 1940s, was to use what's called a density gradient ultra centrifugation and that's where you take in the test tube you take different concentrations of a sucrose sugar solution that have different densities with the most dense being on the bottom and these are
in layers and what happens is that as you put your sample on top and then spin it at high speeds in
the centrifuge and whatever is in your sample will separate based on its density and there will be
bands along the density gradient that will show different purified fractions and one of those
could be the so-called viral particles if they existed. And I want to show you just I'm going to
share a screen again to show you some articles on this to see that actually it has become much more
sophisticated than that.
So here we have an article.
from the Methods in Molecular Biology, which is entitled, A Protocol for Isolation, Purification, Characterization, and Functional Dissection of Exosomes.
Now, of course, if you actually purify something and have it by itself, you can study it and do things like dissection, so that's very important.
Now in this article, it discusses various methods of taking exosomes, which are particles
that come off of our cells, just like the, say the viruses do
in the cell culture experiments.
And these are roughly the same size as what they say viral particles,
around 50 to 100 nanometers.
Some are a little bit larger.
And they have the same morphology and other characteristics of alleged virus particles.
So if you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses.
Okay, because you would use the same exact technique.
Now in here, of course, they do it directly from a body fluid.
They don't take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture, right?
And in fact, one of the challenges that they discuss is that they're present in low numbers.
And there are many different types of extracellular particles that they have to separate the exosomes from.
So these are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it's difficult to purify virus particles, but they've overcome this with exosomes clearly.
And then here we can see An article on bacteriophages.
Now, bacteriophages are another type of particle.
In fact, they're known as the viruses of bacteria.
And we can have a separate discussion on what the role of bacteriophages are, but they are particles of similar size to viruses.
And they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods.
And we could see if I can get this out of the way here.
Okay, so here you can see another paper with methods on how to purify bacteriophages.
Now, Mr. Hammond also said that you can't get the sample, so it's like you only see one thing like it's in a vacuum.
But I'm going to show you here a couple of stock photos of bacteriophages, and you can see That only one thing, they're all the same, that's the only thing in the microscope field, right?
Because these have been purified and there's nothing else in the sample except bacteriophages.
And here is another photograph, same thing.
Now you can, of course, find lots of papers where they have purified bacteriophages, and they've purified also what they call giant viruses in sea algae, and they've purified exosomes, and you can find images of pure exosomes as well.
So they clearly have this technology.
It's been around for quite a long time.
It's just that when they tried to do this back in the 40s and 50s after they had electron microscopes, they were unable to actually find any particle in anyone's tissues or fluids who was ill.
And so, in other words, they were unable to find the particle, not that they don't have the technology to purify it.
Okay, so let's go back to the video and see what the next point is.
So, and they also say that, you know, to properly isolate a virus, you have to do this and that, and they say, well, proper isolation is not using cell culture, which, okay, you're just redefining what isolation means, because if you look up the gold standard, it's literally called the gold standard in, you know, in the literature of how to isolate a virus, the gold standard is cell culture.
So they use cell cultures.
And of course it makes sense because viruses need host cells to replicate.
Right.
Okay, so I'm back.
Now, this is a couple of very important points to discuss.
Okay, so one thing he says, and I want you to remember this for later in the video, that cell culture is the gold standard.
And by the way, the cell culture is what is called isolation.
So interesting that he's shifting to a different term talking about cell cultures, right?
So now, here is the big question.
He said that you need a cell culture Because the virus needs cells to replicate in order to have enough virus to be detected.
Okay.
That is true in the model of how we're told viruses replicate and live.
However, isn't that exactly what's happening in the host Who's the sick person right in the way that it causes disease is that same exact way.
So if it causes an infection in the lung, for example, then the virus invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue right in those cells and then produces more viral particles.
So all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person.
Not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.
In other words, why would we do this indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host that we can extract the virus out?
It just doesn't make sense.
But that would be what I would call a proper isolation.
Where you go to the host or the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and you purify the viral particle right out of that person's bodily tissues or fluids, then you could show it to actually exist.
Okay, let's continue.
One of the things they do, they look for replication.
They They use cell cultures to see, you know, is there something in here that's replicating and that's causing a cytopathic effect?
And so that's evidence of a virus.
And they go further than that.
You know, I mean, you can use electron microscopy and see the variants.
And then you can do whole genome sequencing.
And actually, and you can do, you know, what's called like Okay, I want to stop there because I want to take these points one by one.
So, one comment that was made here is that you can see in a microscope, right, the virus particles.
Now, you certainly can do a microscope image and you can show a mixture of cells from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles.
But how is it that you know what any of those particles are?
So, for example, how do you know the particle didn't come from the foreign cell culture Right?
How do you know it's not an exosome?
How do you know it's not an apoptotic body?
How do you know it's not another type of extracellular vesicle?
How do you know it's a virus?
There's no specific label that's been applied.
It has not been purified, so it's the only thing, and you can do further studies on it.
So, while they can show images of small particles, there is no way to identify the nature or identity of any of those particles.
Now, the next point, I will let him talk a little bit more about the genome before I
interrupt.
Shotgun de novo sequencing where sometimes this is one of the things that they claim
they'll say, well, you know, whole genome sequencing works for things you already have
the whole genome sequence for because there's something called a reference sample.
Sometimes they do genome sequencing with a reference sample, and so they're just comparing what they find with, you know, another published genome.
But, you know, obviously somebody had to come in initially.
Precisely.
And so that's called de novo sequencing.
And so what they do is they can just find the genetic materials And you have to piece it together.
I mean, this involves complex computer computations.
But it's there.
I mean, they do the cell culture.
Okay, great.
So, that's a really good place to stop.
So, he described a couple of things accurately, but I think it's good to just look at genome sequencing as there's two ways to do it overall.
Okay, there's one way, which is the way that you can do it if you have an unknown organism.
Right, which is you have just the organism and you take out all the genetic material directly from that organism and then you can do a variety of specific sequencing technologies, but in the end result, you're going to have only genetic material from that organism and you can sequence it in its entirety.
And that's how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.
Now, the other way is the way that's used in viruses, and I'm not sure that there's a great name that characterizes it overall, but you could call it piecemeal sequencing.
So it could be called like deep metagenomic sequencing, it could be called in silico genomes, it could be called Next-generation sequencing, but it's really just a piecemeal.
And he described it accurately, that you have lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisticated calculations and simulations to put them together.
So here's the problem, which he didn't describe, is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism, like it's not just a virus.
What they're starting with is, in most cases, they're starting with the lung fluid from an individual that only has been shown to have COVID by a PCR test.
And we know the PCR test is very problematic.
It's never been clinically validated, and I'll get to that down the road a little bit.
So, that fluid that they're starting with has genetic material from a variety of different organisms.
It has it from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host, and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person breathed in for the few breaths before they took the sample.
So, in other words, there are a whole mixture of sources of genetic material.
And when you put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn't know what organism they're from.
Okay, so there's no way to tell.
So when the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together
by overlapping ends, we don't know if it's making a real sequence of an organism.
If it's putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash chimera,
we really have no way.
There's no way to go back and check it against a reference standard
because there's never been any true sequence of these viruses.
So what we have here is just a simulation.
And just to give you an idea of the combinatorics, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over 56 million little pieces or little sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs Independently, take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a genome.
And one of the software programs, they just threw out the data, okay?
Because it didn't give them what they wanted.
So they're picking and choosing at each stage, we think this is good, we want to take this.
So there were over a million different possible genomes generated by these computer programs, but they just picked one.
And there was no rhyme or reason by how they picked it.
It was just an arbitrary selection.
So you're saying based on all of this arbitrariness, all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, and just randomly selecting one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer, how could you believe that that represents the real genome of an actual organism?
It would be impossible.
All right, so now that I got that off my chest, I'm going to share the screen again, and we will continue.
They identified this thing that they named the SARS-CoV-2 virus, pull it out, and then can do a genetic sequence based on what they've pulled out.
Is it that simple?
Yeah, essentially.
I mean, it really is that simple.
I mean, yeah, they do.
So, you know, to go through the process, they might take a sample from the patient, they might centrifuge it, and then they take the substrate and they do cell culture, and they can do controls where they have, you know, two cell cultures and one where they insert the patient sample, the substrate from the patient sample, and they watch and say, well, this one has the cytopathic effect, so there's something there.
They can, you know, they can use an electron microscope.
They don't have to, but they can see it.
They can see the coronavirus, and it's called a coronavirus because it looks...
All right, I'm going to stop right there because this is a very important point.
So he went back to the isolation experiments while he was talking about the genome, and then he said they do a control experiment.
Well, let me tell you that that is not quite accurate.
So the control experiment, a proper control where you only vary one variable, Okay.
Has actually, I think, never been done.
So the proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from someone who is sick, but did not have COVID.
So in other words, they had maybe influenza pneumonia, or they had another atypical pneumonia.
Or at a minimum, take the lung fluid from a healthy person and then use those two samples and put them in the cell culture with the exact same conditions.
So the exact same concentration of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients or any other additives or environmental conditions.
So the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols.
all around. That would be a proper control. Unfortunately, that to my knowledge has never
been done. Now, in some of the papers that have been published about SARS-CoV-2,
they mention what's called a mock infected culture. Now, this is not the same as a control
for a couple of reasons. And in fact, I don't know exactly what they do with these mock infected
cultures. They're not reported on every paper, but on a couple they are. And curiously, they
don't describe this at all in the paper as to what experiment it represents. So if you go to
the methods section, you don't see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don't
mention the word control. Now, if they're doing a control experiment, why wouldn't they call it a
control culture?
Right?
They have to use different words because they're not really doing a proper control.
And they're trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the word.
You know, I've read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers and they just say here in the control group, the control group, the control group.
They don't say the mock treatment group, okay?
So, this is a trick.
Now, I even tried to correspond with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publications, and in some cases, they didn't reply at all.
In one case, I was unable to get a clear answer.
First, I just asked an open-ended question, you know, can you tell me the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?
And then I got back, oh, they're treated the same.
And I'm like, well, what does that mean?
Can you tell me the exact conditions?
And I tried to go even to get it into a yes or no question.
Like, did you use the same concentration of antibiotics and the same antibiotics?
Did you use the same nutritions at the same concentration?
Right, et cetera, et cetera.
But I could not get a clear response, which tells me that they are probably hiding something.
So let me share screen again, because I want to show you the two examples of when the control experiment
actually was done and what the results were, okay?
Now it wasn't done exactly, but I'll explain how it deviated and it still is helpful for us to invalidate the experiment.
Now this paper that I'm showing right now, propagation and tissue culture of cytopathogenic agents
from patients with measles.
Now this is actually the first paper published where they use this tell culture technique,
which later became known as virus isolation, which we discussed earlier.
And this is a study on measles and they use a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells.
To put the patient specimen in and then they got the cytopathic effects as mentioned by Mr. Hammond.
And what that is, is it shows that there is some damage to the cell culture.
Okay, so I'm going to show you a couple of key statements in this paper which describe his control experiment.
And hopefully my highlights are still there because I'll never find these sections.
But there we go.
Okay, they made it.
All right, so I'm going to read this quote.
Monkey kidney cultures may, therefore, be applied for the study of these agents, referring to measles, in the same manner as cultures of human kidney.
In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects, which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents, may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in the monkey kidney tissue, Or by unknown factors.
Okay, that's really key.
So what he's saying here is that they saw cytopathic effects in the cell culture, as I mentioned.
That was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself.
But they're saying it may not be necessarily from the measles virus.
It could be from something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or Unknown factors.
Okay, so let's continue to one more quote from this article.
And this is where it describes the control experiment.
Okay, here quote, a second agent was obtained from an un-inoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.
Now that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient on the culture.
So in other words, they ran the cell culture Without a source of virus.
Okay, just the cell culture with nothing in it.
And I continue.
The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.
In other words, this sample with nothing added to it produced the same results that they said in the other sample were from measles.
So the control, right, was positive.
That means that the experimental procedure itself caused the cytopathic changes and not the measles virus.
And this article should have been interpreted in that way and it was in part in the conclusion where it said that what they learned here doesn't represent what occurs in the patient with measles or in vivo.
Now I will show you one more control experiment, and this was done very recently, okay, by Dr. Stefan Lanca, who is the only virologist I'm aware of that has recognized the truth about this and left the field.
And so what he did is he carried out just the control experiment.
So there is no possible source of a virus anywhere in this experiment.
And if you look at the panels on the screen, what you'll see on the top is a day one and the second row is a day five of the experiment.
Now day one is when they changed the cell culture condition.
So previous to day one, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures.
Then on day one, they changed the condition.
So in the first column, they used the full nutrition and antibiotics at the one normal concentration.
In the second column, they used reduced nutrition, okay, which is the DMM with glutamate plus 10% fetal calf serum.
That's a reduced nutrition from the CNT07.
And so with the same 1X concentration of antibiotics.
Now in the third column, this simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments.
Use the reduced nutrition, but increased the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration.
And the protocols that I've seen published use either two times or three times the normal concentration.
And you can see if you go down the third column that on day five, you see cytopathic effects.
So that would be what is given as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there's no virus in this experiment.
Now, in the fourth column, there was added something that is being used for further experiments, but it is yeast RNA.
Once again, something that doesn't contain any viruses.
It's a pured yeast RNA specimen bought, you know, from a laboratory supply company with high quality control.
And you can see that you had even more cytopathic effects in that culture.
So these are two control experiments which show that actually the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects.
And of course, you can go further if you took the culture materials from that dish with cytopathic effects and looked at it under a microscope, you would also see degradation, breakdown particles, and you could pick ones in there that you could call a virus.
Okay, now let's continue.
Looks like, you know, we all know that's got spikes, spike proteins.
So it's the crown.
So they see it, you know what it looks like, and then and then with the whole genome sequence, they've gene sequence
the entire genome of the of the virus and and this this is done every day I mean there's not thousands of times.
Okay.
So we're back now. So, now we're back.
Now he brings up the microscopy again, and I talked about that briefly earlier, but what he says here is that you can see the characteristic spikes on the sample.
So I want to review a couple of articles here, so I will share my screen again, that help elucidate the confusion with this issue.
Okay, so here's the first study, and this was published pretty recently, since the pandemic.
From Kidneys360.
And in this study, essentially what happened is that the scientists were looking at kidney biopsies from people with kidney disease, and most of them were from before the COVID era.
And what they found is that when they looked at these kidney biopsies of people with kidney disease, that on the electron microscopes, micrographs, sorry, they saw And let me show you the image here.
And they essentially said that these were indistinguishable.
Here you can see with the spikes on it, right?
And they said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, and this was a source of confusion for virologists, right?
They pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that said the same thing, interestingly.
Now, they also said that they identified the Now I'm blanking on what they said it was.
Clathrin.
and it was not the S-spike protein.
Now I'm blanking on what they said it was, clathrin.
They said the name of that protein was clathrin.
Okay, so seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless.
It doesn't identify something as a coronavirus when we see the same exact thing in kidney biopsies where the people had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus and it was before even the existence or the discovery of the SARS-CoV-2 fake virus.
So, the second point I wanted to make about the spikes comes from this paper.
Now, this is one of the actual, you know, quote-unquote virus isolation papers from Australia.
The isolation rapid sharing paper.
Now, in this paper, I'm going to show you a very interesting quote in the text.
Okay, right here, and I've highlighted it and I'm going to read.
Electron micrographs of sectioned Vero H. slam cells showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles.
Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.
In other words, they didn't see any spikes.
So, they went back and used a digestive enzyme, trypsin, that breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence and then looked at it again under the microscope and then saw the spikes.
Now, isn't that convenient?
In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they're supposed to look.
Instead of them saying, hey, Maybe there is no virus in this sample.
If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that's what it is?
It's kind of like, you know, having a cat but really wanting a dog, right?
So you put a little microphone around the cat's neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog, right?
It's kind of cheating.
Okay, so let's get back.
To the remainder, remaining points of this daily by scientists all over the world.
I mean, if you go to, there's an international database where scientists submit and publish the whole genome sequences.
Sometimes they do partial genome sequence, but you're just looking at whole genome sequences that have been published.
Last I looked, which was in fact a couple months ago now, there were over 30,000 Wow.
You know, published whole genome sequences.
I mean, this is how they're able to track, you know, the mutation and the evolution of the virus as it passages through the human population.
I mean, the idea that, I mean, really, the logical corollary of this argument that it's never been isolated is that all these tens of thousands of scientists all over the world are in on some grand conspiracy to perpetrate a hoax against us.
Okay, let me speak to those issues.
So, before we get to the hoax of all the scientists, let's get to the genome being repeated.
So, actually this genome sequencing procedure that I described has been repeated over 2 million times.
So, way more than he thought it was.
Okay.
And of course, each time they get different results because they can't repeat an invalid
experiment.
But the way they did this is like I described earlier, they took a bunch of pieces that
they don't know where they are from.
They ran it through different software simulations and then picked out the one that they liked
the way it looked, right?
And then they did some further magic on it by just popping things in, taking things out
somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome
should look like.
Well, then they took that.
And they said, okay, this is now the reference sequence.
And all of those other couple of million experiments that they repeated, they just templated against that reference genome.
So of course, the computer was able to put things together in such a way that it matched that somewhat closely.
Because most likely, The sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA, so you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that's close but not exactly identical.
And so that's how they call all these things variants.
Now, here's the piece about that.
There would have to be, you know, 10,000 scientists all over the world who all were together in a conspiracy.
Now, that's not the case at all.
Because almost none of these scientists realize what they're doing is not good science.
Because they never went and questioned it.
You know, as doctors, you never go and question the things you're taught.
You just learn them and you accept them as being true, right?
That's why I was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career because I also just accepted those things and did them and now I realize that actually they're quite lethal.
And so I don't do them anymore.
But there was, you know, some kind of individual process that I went through for that.
But these scientists are not sitting around and realizing that they're doing fraudulent science because they've never looked at it carefully.
And one of the ways that, you know, science allows this kind of thing to happen is by the high degree of compartmentalization.
So, virologists are over here in this narrow island and they don't collaborate or talk with other people in different fields.
So, they don't learn how other scientists do their experiments and actually do control experiments and don't do indirect experiments, do direct experiments.
You know, they don't talk Seemingly to exosome scientists too often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source and then they would try to do that and then perhaps they would fail because there aren't any viruses and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.
But the truth is it doesn't matter what Reason all of the thousands of scientists who contribute to this have.
It doesn't matter if they're in a conspiracy.
It doesn't matter if they're completely ignorant.
Because the only thing that's important is to look at the actual science itself, the experiments, and ask the question, can you learn this?
Can you conclude this from this experiment?
And if the answer is no, it doesn't matter how many people think you're wrong.
It only matters that the answer is no.
And you know, it shouldn't be terribly surprising because in medicine, this happens frequently.
You know, an example that I often refer to is that with beta blockers and heart failure.
For many, many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure because it makes your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly.
So that was seen to make your heart weaker.
But then new research showed that actually adding a beta blocker slows down the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer.
Now, it took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated in medicine, but there was no truth that like doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to, you know, hasten the death of heart failure patients.
Of course not.
They were just ignorant To the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug and that condition.
And I believe, you know, we could interpret this as a similar phenomenon that virologists who are doing these experiments that are not able to actually show the results or provide the conclusive evidence that they feel, they're just ignorant to that fact because they haven't looked at it.
And it's quite as simple as that.
Okay, so let's see.
I think there are a few more points we can discuss and rebut.
So let's continue.
It's so ludicrous.
I mean, it's just absurd and it goes beyond any kind of reason.
Where did it come from?
Where do you think that idea started?
Well, there's been a number of people within the movement who have been propagating this claim.
I tended not to name names, but Andrew Kaufman is probably one of the leading propagators of this claim.
I think he's probably the most popular.
And I had never heard of him before.
Before he started making that claim and kind of his claims started going viral.
And John Rappaport has been another person who I've seen.
Isn't it ironic that my claim that viruses don't exist has gone viral?
Sorry.
In the past, I've really admired and respected a lot of his writings, but he's been really pushing that claim too, falsely claiming, for example, that the CDC admitted that the virus had never been isolated.
Well, now, do you think they're just confusing?
Because when the CDC first started working on its own PCR test, it was working from a model, right?
It didn't have the isolated virus there.
Doesn't mean that didn't exist, but when they first started working on the tests, they didn't work from an isolated virus.
Do you think that's what?
No, that's precisely it.
They actually found a document.
So it's a CDC document on the FDA's website describing its PCR tests that it developed.
And so at the time that that document was initially published, which was like early February, and I think it was probably written in late January, maybe even mid-January.
And so when it was published, I think February 4th, it contained a statement saying that we do not have an isolate of the virus.
And so they developed their PCR tests based on the published whole genome sequence.
from scientists in China that published it. And so, that was precisely what happened. And then,
as they updated the document over time, I mean, they would update it for various reasons.
But, of course, the statement remained in there that, you know, because at the time they were
developing a test, they didn't have the virus isolate. So, eventually, you know, a short time
later, the CDC did isolate the virus from a patient in Washington. And they described that as a
published paper on it in the literature. You can go read it.
Just like there's all kinds of published papers on, you know, from scientists all over the world.
Yes, and all the published papers do the same exact cell culture procedure. And it's easy to
replicate because the experimental procedure itself gives you the results.
So, that's why so many scientists like to do this experiment because it's a foregone conclusion.
But I want to get back to the point that he made about the CDC's paper.
So, let me point out first of all that I actually never claimed that this was evidence for the non-existence of the virus, okay?
Because I thought, well, the CDC not having it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, right?
But other people did put forth that argument, so it's a fair one to make.
But I'll tell you what my opinion is, because it's actually quite different than you might expect.
So, it's not actually relevant if they had virus isolates or not.
And let me explain why.
So this paper that he's referring to from the CDC was how the CDC developed their PCR protocol.
Okay?
Now remember, PCR is a way to amplify specific sequences of genetic material, DNA or RNA, and then be able to measure and detect those sequences.
Now, if What they're talking about here, though, is using it as a diagnostic test, not as an amplification research tool.
Now, any diagnostic test, in order to develop one, what you have to do is a basic validation study.
And that's where you take the gold standard for that condition.
So let's say you want to do a diagnostic test for, you know, brain cancer.
Okay, so the gold standard for brain cancer is a brain biopsy that shows the cancer cells under the microscope.
So if you wanted to develop a blood test that could diagnose brain cancer or an MRI protocol, for example, well, what you do is you would have a series of patients who have biopsy proven, you know, the gold standard brain cancer, and then you'd have a control group that doesn't have brain cancer, and you would do the blood test in both groups, And then you'd measure the accuracy.
So you'd want to know, first of all, it shouldn't be positive in anyone without brain cancer.
And then it should be positive in almost everyone with brain cancer when compared to the gold standard.
Now, I actually conducted research like this earlier in my career.
I wanted to develop a screening test for competence to stand trial, which is something that if you're a criminal defendant and you might have a mental illness or a brain injury or a cognitive impairment, Then you might not be able to understand the law and defend yourself.
And in our nation, the laws say that if you're unable to understand and defend yourself, then you can't be put on trial.
And so this is something as a forensic psychiatrist that I was involved in.
And the gold standard for competence to stand trial is actually the decision of the judge, but we used the opinion of the psychiatric expert because that's what the judge uses to make their opinion.
And it's generally two psychiatric experts and if they don't agree then they have a third expert to break the tie.
Now, this is how it's done in New York.
So, what we did is we had that gold standard and then we administered the test, which in this case was the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, to the same group of people who had a Competency evaluation and opinion from an expert witness or a psychiatrist.
And then we compare the results of the screening test to the gold standard and we did a statistical analysis.
And we actually showed quite favorable results with that particular example.
And this is exactly how you would develop a diagnostic test for an infectious disease.
Now earlier on Mr. Hammond stated that the gold standard for showing the virus was the tissue culture or cell culture isolation experiment.
So then the way to develop a PCR as a diagnostic test or any other technology as a diagnostic test is that you would get a group of patients Who were sick and do the virus cell culture isolation experiment on all of them, like maybe at least a hundred people, maybe more would be better.
And then perform the PCR proposed diagnostic tests on the same group of people and then do the same thing on a control group.
Maybe people who had a lung infection that they didn't isolate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, right?
It had another cause.
And then they could look at how many times did the results of the PCR diagnostic proposed test agree with the gold standard.
And then you could calculate your error rate, your sensitivity and specificity, and then you could actually apply to the FDA or other agencies to get that approved as a diagnostic test.
But here we have a situation where the CDC did not do any clinical validation.
And they didn't even use the proxy, which would have been, you know, the so-called isolated virus from, you know, a cell culture.
But still, that wouldn't have been accurate.
But they did something that was quite telling, which is they actually just used a chemical synthesizing machine to make the sequences that they were, were the target sequences,
and they put them in different concentrations and they calibrated the PCR test with that.
But that doesn't, you know, resemble reality, right?
Because we don't have any synthetic pieces of RNA in our body, right?
So, if you zoom out, what you'll find is that there actually has never been one clinical validation study for any COVID diagnostic test.
They never compared any of these things to the gold standard whatsoever.
In fact, if you want to look at it realistically, they actually developed the PCR before they discovered or even claimed to discover a virus and then used that to define that someone had a virus before they actually found a virus.
And then when they showed those particles or the cytopathic effects, they said it was because of the virus that they showed was there with the PCR test.
So this is circular reasoning, as you can see.
None of these things have ever been proven or validated in any way.
Okay, we're almost done, but there's a little bit more before we finish up.
So here we go.
All over the world, isolating the virus and doing whole genome sequencing.
And so, they did.
It didn't update that statement in the document to say, well, at the time we did the test, we didn't have a virus isolate.
It just read the way it always had from the beginning.
There's no reason to update that.
I mean, it was context to it.
And so, what Rappaport and others have done is just kind of take that statement out of context and say, oh, look, the CDC is admitting that the virus.
All right.
I'm just going to skip ahead here.
Are not the causative agent.
these pathologies, but are actually sort of the result of them, that they're exosomes.
Have you looked into it?
Do you have anything to say about that?
Yes, scientists recognize the distinction between exosomes and viruses.
They're not the same thing.
Certainly, they have similarities, and it's very interesting, some of the similarities, and they both kind of serve as these kind of messengers.
Exosomes kind of deliver messages around their body.
Now, this is interesting.
Now, of course, I never claimed that viruses are exosomes.
That actually comes from virologists.
What my main claim was is that the pictures that they show that they say are viruses, which are a mixture of degrading cells and small nanometer-sized particles, I said there's no way to tell that that's not an exosome and that it's a virus.
That these things look exactly the same, they're the same size, same shape.
So without a chemical test, right, something specific, Or without purifying them and getting only identical particles so that you can then characterize them, there's no way to differentiate whatsoever between the two.
Dr. Zach Bush is really good on this.
He's talked about how viruses themselves are essentially RNA viruses are these messengers, they deliver messages to
our own system.
So they essentially, when we have these infections, and they actually integrate into our own DNA,
I mean, 10% of our own DNA is viral in origin.
Okay, I'm going to end there and I'm going to give my final comments here about those last points.
Now, very interesting thing.
So one thing he says is that viruses are vehicles of communication like exosomes.
Now, I have never heard anyone say that before in terms of a scientist or a virologist.
And in fact, what we're told is that viruses are destructive, right?
That they invade our body and make us sick and could even kill us.
So, I'm not sure how that transfers information like they say exosomes do.
But, you know, this other piece about that, you know, viruses are actually 10% of our own genome.
Now, this brings up a really, really big issue and a really, really important point here.
Because what you can see is, if you look back over the last century plus, is that scientists keep saying viruses are different things over time.
Okay, because originally they have a hypothesis and then they do experiments to try to show that and they find that that's not the case.
So they revise their theory then they do another set of experiments that are unable to show that and then they revise it again.
And now this is That, in general, is a good method of doing science.
However, the problem is that they don't give up the theory.
They stay with the same theory.
They just change little bits to try to keep it believed.
Okay?
And this is one of them.
Because what they really want to do is go into the future where they don't do any physical experiments.
They don't try to put anything in a cell culture and show you pictures.
They just only do genetic tests.
And they say, basically, we found the genetic material of a virus.
Now, this thing about saying 10% of our genome, of our genetic sequences, viruses, is just ridiculous.
Because we've never shown these things to exist in nature anywhere.
They've only been shown in the human body or in the body of an animal.
I want to tell you something about the human genome, and this will help explain about this issue about genetic material that they say are viruses, that the human genome is viruses, okay?
So, only 1% or probably a little less than 1% of all of our entire DNA sequence in humans is made of genes that code proteins, okay?
Now, the other 99% initially was called the junk DNA. Now since then it's been
discovered that of course it's not junk because why would nature put 99% junk in our bodies? Of
course that doesn't make sense. So what they call it now is non-coding DNA and what that means
is it doesn't code for a gene and a protein.
Okay.
It doesn't mean it doesn't nothing happens to it.
And what in fact happens to it is that all of it gets transcribed into RNA.
Surprise surprise RNA.
That's exactly the kind of genetic material that they're looking for in these virus gene tests, right?
Like the PCR.
Now, this RNA doesn't just stay in the same sequence that it is in our genome.
Once the DNA gets turned into RNA, then it undergoes what's called splicing, recombination, post-transcriptional processing, etc.
So, in other words, it comes off as one strand and then it loops around and cuts off, it gets spliced in the middle, different pieces come together, all this kind of rearranging, and this creates novel sequences.
In other words, the sequence is different than it was when it was in the nucleus's DNA.
It's now changed because of all this, you know, moving around and reconfiguring and recombining and splicing, etc.
So, essentially what we have is, depending on the different health condition of the animal, that they're going to splice it and rearrange it and process it in different ways, and we're going to get a unique set of sequences.
And what's happened is, is that the biologists and virologists have misinterpreted these unique sequences as being non-self.
They say that they're viruses and that they cause disease or they represent viruses or they have some other explanation.
But why not just look at the simple explanation that they are our own genetic material and that the sequences are unique and novel because we have a unique and novel state of health and our body splices and recombines and processes those sequences in a way to match that state of health.
And that's why they're unique to us.
And here's the other interesting thing that we can find these similar sequences in people with similar health conditions.
So perhaps if we have pneumonia, Or if we have the flu, our body processes these non-coding RNAs in a certain way to help deal with that condition.
And we might be able to detect some of these in people, but they've never been shown to come from a particle outside the body.
They've never been, you know, shown to come from a pure organism other than a human.
So this must be what they are, and I believe that some of this information really confuses what is us, right?
Self and what is non-self out there, right?
And of course the non-self is dangerous to the self.
So if we recognize that what we're misinterpreting or many people are misinterpreting as genetic sequences of virus in our own genome, in the nuclei of our own cells, if we can see that that's actually our own sequences, that it just represents our own unique health state, and it's actually for the purpose of helping us heal, And not risking further disease.
I think it's very important to get this straight, the self versus non-self, and to really, you know, debunk these myths that have been perpetuated and that have expanded, you know, really throughout all of the mainstream science with respect to the biomedical sciences.
So, I hope this has been helpful.
As you can see, I've gone through point by point, I've introduced additional scientific evidence to refute many of the points, and I've given you scientific logic and reasoning and descriptions to refute the remainder of the points.
So I hope that you will research and think about this further, that you'll consider all the evidence, that you won't just adopt the opinion of some expert, Right?
Whether it be an author, whether it be a celebrity, a journalist, a famous doctor, whether it be me, whether it be your parents, your spouse, anyone.
What you should do is learn this information, think about it, Look up for more information to answer unanswered questions and make your own opinion.
And you'll know that when you arrive at something close to the truth, you'll have that settling feeling.
You'll know that it's right.
And when you talk about it to other people, you'll know that you're doing the right thing by spreading a message of truth.
And that's really the only thing that can result in us going back to the freedom and authority over ourselves that God has created us to embody on this earth.
▲
Export Selection