Getting to the Truth About “Viruses”: Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman & Tom Cowan Respond to  Del Bigtree’s Statements in a Recent Interview With The Conscious Resistance

 

“I think realistically, we’re talking about the state of the science in virology. And these are facts that we can check within their own publications. So, we’re not presenting a philosophical view about how biology works necessarily. What we’re saying is that when we go to the scientific literature,  we can see that they’ve not established that there are pathogenic particles called viruses.”

~ Dr. Mark Bailey

 

“…The way I see it right now is — the goal, I’d say, is to stop the tyranny… And the good thing, I would say, is that whoever is the perpetrators of this… in a sense they gave us a gift. And the gift is, they made this particular tyranny — focus of it — to be about a virus. And it turns out that if you actually go into how do you know whether these so-called pathogenic viruses exist, it’s very simple…

…With viruses, there’s no technical problem of finding them. We’ve been able to do this for over 70 years. And the fact of the matter is… you can’t find them in the habitat that they say they are. And so this becomes such a scientific truth — logical, rational way of understanding the world. And it becomes clear to just about everybody that they can’t prove that these viruses exist.

And since the goal is to stop the tyranny… if you show that there’s no evidence that they do exist, which is very easy to do, then all of the things in the tyranny — so-called vaccines, injections, social distancing, masking, closing businesses, restriction of travel — all that makes no sense. No sense. So you don’t have to fight about all those things…” 

~ Dr. Tom Cowan

 

---

“Viruses” – Baileys, Cowan & Kaufman Respond to Del Bigtree

by Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, with Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Dr. Tom Cowan
September 3, 2022

 

In a recent interview, Del Bigtree suggested that the world is not ready for the “no virus” conversation.

We take a different view, which is why the “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement was launched.

Dr Sam and Mark Bailey are joined by Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andy Kaufman to analyse Bigtree’s strategy. We discuss why we believe the COVID-19 situation should be used to unravel not only the virus model, but the fraud of germ theory as well.



References:

1. Del Bigtree Interview
2. The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
3. Dr Tom Cowan
4. Dr Andrew Kaufman
5. Dr Sam Bailey – Virus Debate Statement Video

 

Connect with Drs. Mark & Sam Bailey

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: kalhh 

Part 2: The Steve Kirsch Debate on the Existence of the Virus

Doing revolutionary science

by Jon Rappoport, Jon Rappoport substack
August 8, 2022

 

I’m moving on from Part 1 into a completely different area.

There is lab work in the sciences that crucially affects populations. Two examples: virologists claiming they’ve isolated SARS-CoV-2; and researchers deciding they’ve found a way to adapt RNA technology to produce a COVID vaccine.

In the first case, the purported discovery of SARS-CoV-2 enabled the launch of the global pandemic announcement, which eventually led to the lockdowns and the crashing of economies. In the second case, the RNA-vaccine “breakthrough” led to the vaccination of billions of people, and massive numbers of injuries and deaths.

These are crucial effects, to say the least.

And yet, those on the outside, who have no access to these labs AS THE WORK IS BEING DONE, those who are independent scientists and analysts and can only read the studies once they are published—

—This is an unconscionable situation, when you stop and think about it.

The whole world is changed by the research, but we can’t watch it IN PROGRESS.

People have been brainwashed into thinking this lack of access to labs is normal. Standard. Non-official persons entering these labs and tracking the work step by step would amount to a criminal invasion. That’s what we’re supposed to believe:

“Just accept our statements about our findings and shut up and obey.”

“We’re the pros. You’re the idiots.”

“We’re certified. You’re the guinea pigs.”

“Call security, call the FBI, call DHS, terrorists are trying to break into our lab.”

“This is a holy sanctum, anointed by God. You’re a mortal sinner.”

Here’s my kind of debate on the existence of SARS-Cov-2. Here’s my bottom, bottom line.

Virologists are compelled to replicate, in the lab, the so-called discovery of SARS-CoV-2. An outside team of truly independent scientists and journalists is present.

So is a camera crew. With many cameras. And many mics.

The team watches every single move the virologists make. Any member of the team can stop the work and ask a question or criticize a move.

The questions and answers and the criticisms and replies are all recorded. Ditto for every action the virologists take.

THIS is a REAL debate. The most real debate.

“Wait. That’s ridiculous. You can’t expect these highly trained virologists to submit themselves to this kind of…inspection.”

Of course I can.

For example: Our team member in the lab says, “All right, you’re observing that the monkey cells and the human cells in this soup you’ve created are dying off. You claim the killer must be ‘the virus’ in the patient’s tissue sample—the sample you dropped in the soup. You claim nothing else in the soup could be killing the cells. So let me ask you this? Where is the control experiment?”

“The what?”

“The control. My, my. You really forgot about that?”

“I don’t understand. Turn off the cameras.”

“Leave them on, boys. This is interesting. Let me explain, Dr. High Horse. You should have a second dish of soup that is absolutely identical to the first dish, except the second dish does NOT contain the tissue sample from a patient. You also keep an eye on that second dish and see whether the monkey cells and the human cells in it die off. If they do…then your contention that ‘the virus’ in the patient sample is killing those cells is worthless. And you have no evidence your virus is in the patient sample. Or that it exists.”

“Oh. Well…”

“Well, what? You don’t mean to say all those virologists in all those labs who claimed they found the new virus omitted the control experiment, do you?”

YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF THING. THAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION.

On camera, in the lab, in person.

“That would never happen. They would never let you in there.”

Which proves what? I’m just stating what the MOST REAL DEBATE WOULD CONSIST OF, in a half-sane world. It would look exactly like that.

Here’s a parallel for you. A civilian no one ever heard of develops a car he says runs on water. He says he’s got a new process that VERY cheaply splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the car runs on the hydrogen.

Over years and decades, the legend grows. Finally, major media are starting to nibble around the edges of the story.

So one day, a bunch of Saudis and oil execs and scientists and men in suits show up at this man’s garage, and express great interest in his work. THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THIS CRAZY GUY HAS STUMBLED ON A REVOLUTIONARY WAY TO POWER A CAR.

So what would they ask him to do?

See, they’re the outsiders with no access, and he’s the insider.

Are they just going to ask him for assurances?

Hell no. They’re going to ask him to take the engine apart and put it back together again. They’re going to ask him to take the fuel system apart and put it back together again. They’re going to want to go through his whole car and his garage and his kitchen and his bathroom with a fine-toothed comb. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITUATION, SINCE IT COULD AFFECT THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION, AND THEIR PROFITS, AND SO ON.

They’re not screwing around.

And neither should we.

Our lives and futures and the lives of future generations are on the line with this “virus thing.”

We should be looking at every beaker and tube and slide and instrument in the virology lab. We should be looking over the shoulders of the virologists and watching every move they make and asking pointed questions and demanding answers.

So we really know whether they’re doing science or preposterous bullshit.

And of course we wouldn’t be paying attention to random assurances from “highly qualified and respected scientists” along the way. We’d be studiously ignoring them.

If you need another parallel to the real kind of investigation I’m demanding, think of bringing a team into the Vatican and inspecting every inch of space in every building, including the basements and caverns…to see what’s really there. The whole enchilada.

All right, you get the idea. You see what I’m asking for.

Now, short of that, what do we have? What can we get access to?

Well, it’s not entirely reliable, but here it is:

We can read published studies which claim to have found SARS-CoV-2. Those studies all have methods sections. In them, the researchers describe, step by step, what they did to “isolate the virus.”

We have that.

I’m now going to republish one of those methods sections, chunk by chunk, and have Dr. Andrew Kaufman make his criticisms as we go along. I published all this about a year ago.

I want to emphasize that Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of highly detailed analyses of these methods sections, from a number of other independent critics. We need much more of this.

The devil is in the details.

Here we go:

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)”.

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO). Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 500 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past two years) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

As I stated, Dr. Kaufman’s analysis should be just the beginning of intense and detailed examination of studies that describe “how the virus was isolated.”

As opposed to a few hours of Zoom debate in which people summarize their opposing positions, and then submit to a vote from a panel of judges who descend from the sky with motives as pure as Superman and Wonder Woman. All this happens with Steve Kirsch in the background holding a million dollar prize. In Vegas, Steve would be called the house. And the house always wins.

No dice.

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons works of geralt 

The Great Covid Virus Debate

Drs. Andrew Kaufman and Thomas Cowan respond to their critics

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Weston A. Price Foundation
April 17, 2022

 

 

 

So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.

Cell Culture is the Gold Standard

Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it 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 kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?

Cytopathic Effects

Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.

Genetic Sequencing

Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.

But for viruses, scientists use a differ­ent technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.

Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisti­cated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diag­nosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)

The fluid they start with has genetic ma­terial from many different organisms—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 inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.

When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these vi­ruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.

To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or 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 typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data 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 use this.”

The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results repre­sent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.

Lack of Proper Controls

Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from some­one who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.

Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”

If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publica­tions. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.

In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.

We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.⁴ This was the first pub­lished paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”

In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic ef­fects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.

An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “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 a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”

In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.

Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated cul­ture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be dis­tinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.

Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.

An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.

Day One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. 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. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiot­ics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.

The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.

In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cy­topathic effects on Day Five in that culture.

So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.

Coronavirus Fringe Pattern

According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coro­navirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.⁵ In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the character­istic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.

They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.

The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.⁶ A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . 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 into the cell culture medium immediately im­proved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the diges­tive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)

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 saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the 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 like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.

Genome Sequencing

As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.

As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”

Now Hammond claims that if the proce­dures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be par­ticipating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.

But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, 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 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 whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t mat­ter whether 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 something from this? Can you conclude anything 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. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the re­sults or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.

Response to Mercola

Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”¹ in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photo­graphed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.

Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these stud­ies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?

As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”

Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contami­nated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiot­ics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.

Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.

According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.

More Genome Sequencing

One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.⁷ In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.

This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.

They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really im­portant point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the se­quencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”

In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said con­tained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.

The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.

They also skipped an important step, which they call making “con­tigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.

In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.

All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.

When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!

More Covid-19 Virus Studies

Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.⁸ The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.

Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.⁹ According to the researchers, “Electron mi­croscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.

These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic com­position of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.

At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgar­ian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.¹⁰

This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found an­tibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.

Does It Matter?

Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and ham­per the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!

And yet the virus debate has immense im­portance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justifi­cation for forcing these measures on the public disappears.

---

SIDEBARS

Electron Microscopy

Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:

FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.

DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.

EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.

SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.

STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.

These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointes­tinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.

Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biologi­cal samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.

A Mouse Study

Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.¹¹

In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infec­tion utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”

Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.

According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.

According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.

Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a per­son with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.

Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any rela­tion to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.

And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.

If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and sub­jected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.

And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.

The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.

In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.

Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.

Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus

Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.

The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.

The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete cop­ies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.

The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.¹²

Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?

Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).

Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.

So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?

The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”

English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.

Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequenc­es—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”

The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.

This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.

So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.

The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals

by Dr. Peterson Pierre¹³

If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?

The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.

The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.

Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.

---

References

1. https://amos37.com/mercola-yes-sars-cov-2-is-real-virus/
2. Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
3. Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bac­teriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
4. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
5. Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
6. Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
7. Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
8. Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
9. Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and character­ization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
10. Frei R, Corbett P. Bombshell! “No one has died from the coronavirus” says leading pathologist. James Fetzer, July 11, 2020. https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/07/bombshell-no-one-has-died-from-the-coronavirus-says-leading-pathologist/
11. Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infec­tion and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
12. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
13. Pierre P. The seven US government payoffs to kill you in hospitals. Jan. 16, 2022. https://www.bitchute.com/video/rzcEVrVaA9jY/

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2022

 

Connect with Weston A. Price Foundation

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: geralt

“Stop Arguing About the Existence of the Virus”

 

---

“Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched
with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct
diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and
prevented by a toxic vaccine.

It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.”

~ Jon Rappoport

---

 

“Stop arguing about the existence of the virus”

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
May 20, 2022

 

The headline of this article has become a battle cry among some “alternative journalists,” activists, lawyers, and doctors.

As my readers know, I’ve devoted considerable space, over the past two years, to presenting evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is a scientific fairy tale, a con, and the virus doesn’t exist.

So when I hear this battle cry, I’m motivated to mention a few significant points.

Let me start by countering the claim that debating the existence of the virus is wasting time.

Here’s a shocker. A person can do more than one thing at the same time. For example, he can expose/oppose the toxic vaccine. He can expose the murderous COVID treatments (ventilators, sedatives, antiviral drugs). He can expose using simple flu-like illness to create fraudulent COVID case numbers.

And he can ALSO expose the fact that the virus has never been isolated (discovered) or sequenced.

So highlighting the non-existence of the virus doesn’t rule out dealing with other vital concerns.

This may come as a surprise, but it’s even possible to go to court to challenge a vaccine mandate, while ALSO arguing elsewhere that the virus doesn’t exist. I know. Amazing, right?

Those alarmed by “the virus doesn’t exist” also say: making that statement leaves us open to being called whackos, and leaves us unable to convince people that all our other criticisms of the pandemic are true.

I would counter that in two ways. Millions of people already believe we’re whackos, even those of us who take a sacred blood oath that the virus is real.

And second, people going against the grain, when their vital issue is still in the budding stage, are always called nuts. Trust me, there was a time when criticizing vaccines made people look like total whackos in the eyes of the general public—and it took decades of fighting the consensus to bring that criticism into the open, where many people saw the truth about jabs.

Here’s another fun fact. The entire medical cartel thrives on the insane proposition—launched with fervor more than a hundred years ago—that people suffer from thousands of distinct diseases, each of which is caused by a single germ, which must be treated by a toxic drug and prevented by a toxic vaccine.

It is this great lie that that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of people.

Therefore, the very real question about the existence of viruses in general is more than a weird preoccupation.

Next, those who claim, “OF COURSE viruses exist,” don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. They’re merely PARROTING what they learned in school or what researchers baldly claim in studies.

“Well, all virologists can’t be wrong.”

Yes, Virginia, they can all be wrong. Just as vaccinologists can all be wrong about “the remarkable safety and efficacy of vaccines.”

Some of the OF COURSE VIRUSES EXIST people are new to the way blogs and videos work. They’ve never encountered commenters in any great numbers before. So when a few dozen committed people suddenly tell them they should examine their premises more carefully and consider what really goes on in virology labs, these OF COURSE people are annoyed and irritated. They don’t like being challenged on basic issues. They don’t like feeling that the floor might suddenly shift under their feet. So they turn on their arrogance machines.

So be it.

The issue isn’t going away. Nor should it.

Despite growing digital censorship, the internet is still the Wild West in certain respects. People are going to say THE VIRUS DOESN’T EXIST, and VIRUSES DON’T EXIST.

And foundations will shake.

Foundations of the medical cartel, and foundations underlying people’s cherished assumptions.

In any area of human life, there are conflicts between “this is strategy” and “this is the truth.” There always will be.

Trying to shortchange the truth or casually say the truth is a lie doesn’t work.

NO ONE who is reading this article has ever been in a virology lab and witnessed the step by step process of “discovering a new virus.” I find that stunning. And yet all sorts of people are quite ready to assert with great finality that they know all about isolating viruses.

If by chance, someone reading this article HAS actually been in a lab and “discovered a virus,” you can bet your bottom dollar he won’t let you or me in there with a full film crew and our outlier experts asking very pointed questions about each “scientific” move he makes, as he “isolates a virus.”

To which somebody might reply: “Well, I’ve never seen a car being made in a factory, but I drive one with full confidence.”

Yes, but when the “virus discovered in a lab” results in you or someone you love being dosed with a drug or vaccine that maims you or kills your family member, you damn well should want to get into “that factory where the car is made.”

But you can’t. They won’t let you…

…Despite the fact that, as I’ve documented many times, the US medical system kills, by a very conservative estimate, 225,000 people a year, or 2.25 million people per decade. [0]

Chew on THAT for a while.

Here is one of my articles on the subject of virus isolation:

—Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists—

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. Human cells, monkey cells, antibiotics, other chemicals, random genetic material.

The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup, because they’re dropped a mucus sample from a patient in the soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists, and you don’t have an isolated specimen of it?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 375 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

 

---

SOURCES:

[0] https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-primary-care-policy-center/Publications_PDFs/A154.pdf

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

[3] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/

---

FURTHER READING:

Is the virus real? Steve Kirsch suggests a debate

blog.nomorefakenews.com/2022/01/25/is-the-virus-real-steve-kirsch-suggests-a-debate/

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

cover image based on creative commons work of Samillustrando

Challenging the Foundations of Virology: Corona Investigative Committee With Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman

 

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:

This clip is from the Corona Investigative Committee’s  “The Virus of Power” series of interviews , Session 90, which took place on February 4, 2022.  See the entire Session 90 here (6+ hours long).

In this interview, Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Lanka challenge “germ theory”  and the “science” at the foundation of virology.  Of course, this is highly controversial because it shakes the foundation of modern medicine, questions the endless stream of vaccines and toxic medicines produced by big pharma — not to mention the generations of doctors, scientists and medical professionals who have dedicated careers to this “science”. 

Committee member Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who has been invaluable in exposing the pandemic fraud and is a key source of medical insight for the committee, challenges Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Lanka, and vehemently defends the prevailing view regarding viruses as cause of disease.  See Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg’s presentation during Session 90 here. His presentation occurred earlier in the session, prior to this conversation with Drs. Kaufman and Lanka.  

Below the Corona Investigative Committee video, we are providing documents, videos and articles for understanding the work of Dr. Lanka, Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Tom Cowan and others. 

Please do your own research and come to your own conclusions.



Video by Oval Media can be found at Corona Investigate Committee Odysee channel.

 

Documents by Dr. Stefan Lanka:

Dismantling the Virus Theory by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

The Causes of Corona Crisis Are Clearly Identified — Virologists Who Claim Disease-Causing Viruses Are Science Fraudsters and Must Be Prosecuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

How Dead Are Virus Anyway? All Claims of Virus Existence Refuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

 

Related document by Harold Hillman:

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman (download PDF)

 

Video on the work of Dr. Lanka:

The Final Refutation Of Virology by Dr. Stefan Lanka

 

Related articles:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

The Fraudulent Use of PCR / RT-PCR Techniques for the Manipulation, Harm and, Ultimately, the Destruction of Humanity

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

Exposing the Lie — Hippocratic Hypocrisy: A Tale of Two Snakes [A collaborative film by Spacebusters and Dr. Andrew Kaufman about how authentic medicine was hijacked by the power elite and turned into a deadly, sickness-for-profit industry.]

 

Connect with Dr. Stefan Lanka: http://wissenschafftplus.de/

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman: https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan: http://drtomcowan.com/

 

Connect with Corona Investigative Committee

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: A Challenging Response to Dr. Mercola’s Article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”

 

A Response to Dr. Mercola’s Recent Statement on if SARS-Cov-2 Is a Real Virus With Dr. Andrew Kaufma

by Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
January 21, 2022

 

“…I think there has been, you know, a total wave right of criticism of the the truth that viruses don’t exist and cause disease. And we see that, seemingly at the same time, that the pandemic seems to be drawing near an end. Right?

We see suddenly lifting restrictions all over the world.

And even Bill Gates predicted in 2022 that would be the end of the pandemic.

The Wall Street journal printed an editorial saying that…essentially last three weeks a major drop in cases, and it signifies, you know, what do they call it — the herd immunity. Right? Which is another thing we can debunk.

So, as they’re kind of ending out of this — and, you know, I’m sure that there’s more planned in the future. And I don’t know if it’s going to be a health crisis or not. But if this does peter out, they want to make sure that as we, you know, get this relief and come out of it — and probably they want us to look at them in a favorable light.

But they want to make sure that we still believe in deadly and dangerous viruses.

And they want to make sure that we still believe that there are safe vaccines, even if we question the safety of these particular genetic injections.

That we retain those important beliefs, so that they can still continue to profit and manipulate and, you know, run operations in the future.”

~ Dr. Andrew Kaufman

 



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

 

See Dr. Mercola’s article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus” here.

Here are the additional links referenced during the discussion:
– Virus Isolation – Is It Real? – https://www.bitchute.com/video/UnpfmjmXNH0O/
– An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola – https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/open-letter-to-dr-mercola-january-17-2022/
– What is a Virus? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thsDCmtkcOA

 

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

---

See related:

Virus Isolation…Is It Real? Andrew Kaufman, MD Responds to Jeremy Hammond

Christine Massey: An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola in Response to His Claim That SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated

Questioning ‘The Science’: What Is a ‘Virus’? How Is a ‘Virus’ Seen & Isolated?

Andrew Kaufman: Are the Vaccinated “Contagious”? — Now Is the Time That We Have to Say NO to Stop the Culmination of This Plan

 

TCTL editor’s note:

In this powerful interview by Kate Sugak, Andrew Kaufman includes an overview of the erroneous germ theory, as well as insights into the globalist agenda of using “anti-covid” mandates, “vaccinations” and vaccine passports in an attempt to dominate all of humanity.  

Andrew also addresses the widely-shared notion that vaccinated people are “shedding” spiked proteins. He brings a clear view of what we actually know and what, so far, is just speculation. At approximately the 37-minute mark, Kate asks Andrew about these “shedding” reports.

Beneath Kate’s interview, we share some excerpts from the video, including what Andrew says about this growing fear about the vaccinated. 

 

 

Kate Sugak interviews Andrew Kaufman

by Kate Sugak w/ Andrew Kaufman
September 2, 2021

 



Dear friends, I am happy to inform you that I had a long-awaited conversation with the legendary Andrew Kaufman. Andrew Kaufman is an American medical doctor and researcher who has done a tremendous job to open the eyes of hundreds thousands of people around the world to the truth about viruses and the falsehood of the germ theory of disease. Topics we discussed:

• Andrew’s story, how he began to notice that there is something was wrong with what he was taught in medical school about diseases and infection. How did he come to understanding that the germ theory of disease, which is the base of modern medicine is wrong, and viruses do not exist at all?
• Then we talked in more detail about the germ theory and why microbes do not cause disease. What causes disease in humans and what we mistake for contagion.
• We also discussed the epidemiological study in which Andrew took part, the purpose of which was to understand whether people vaccinated against Covid-19 are dangerous for the unvaccinated or not, as well as Andrew’s point of view on why the “pandemic” was arranged and what way out from this he sees.

Andrew’s website: https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/
Kate’s IG: https://www.instagram.com/kattie.su/
Telegram: https://t.me/germtheoryisahoax

 

Connect with Kate Sugak

Connect with Andrew Kaufman

 

---

Excerpts from video transcript prepared by TCTL editor:

 

Andrew Kaufman

Really the spirit of science and the philosophy of science, not how it manifests in reality today but what it really gets at, is always doubting everything. And if you propose a theory and then you have some experimental evidence that supports it, that definitely adds weight to it. But my job as a scientist is actually to try and disprove it. And if I fail to disprove it, that’s what really makes it valid and true. So it has to withstand the attempts to disprove it. And that’s how we we really need to obtain scientific validity. And all I’m really saying is that these theories that have been put out there as truth actually have already been disproven.

###

Kate Sugak

Another questions that I have that is a very important because we have these videos in the Russian-speaking community that show extreme fear of people that are vaccinated — that can be contagious or can be dangerous to the unvaccinated…

Andrew Kaufman

Let me just start off by saying that it’s already known that, with gene therapy — because we’re really talking about gene therapy here, these are not not vaccines in any traditional sense — that there is this possibility of what they call shedding.

And, in fact, the FDA in the United States has a specific guidance document — that if your gonna develop gene therapy you need to do some testing to show that this is not an issue with your product.

And the reason is — because you’re making a foreign protein in whoever receives this injection. And that foreign protein could be in your body fluids and, which means, that it can be passed to other individuals.

And the foreign protein may have its own toxicity. Right? Because, think about if they’re developing a gene therapy for cancer, they might want to produce a toxic drug that kills the cancer, for example, and you don’t want that to get into you know your kids or your neighbors.

So, they’re supposed to test the body fluids to see — is this foreign protein or foreign gene product actually there. And they should test the urine and the feces, sweat, saliva, tears, etc.

But since they re-labelled these gene therapies as vaccines they got around this requirement somehow. And, to my knowledge, haven’t even done testing — or at least that’s been publicly released — that shows there’s actually a spike protein being made anywhere in the body.

There was one small study from Canada done by independent groups on the Modern product, but it was a really strange protocol, and in a very small number of people. And I’m not sure that I even trust the results. But they did show some spike protein up to 14 days after the first injection. Only in the blood. They only looked at the blood.

So we don’t really know. And also, if the spike protein gets out into the environments — like, let’s say, it is in the saliva and you start talking and your saliva goes out in front of you and flies on the wall or on a table. Well then if there’s spike protein in that it will be denatured pretty quickly because, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, that needs to be kept frozen. Right? So at room temperature it would not stay intact. So there’s a lot of complexity…

So overall there is, at least a theoretical problem here. Right? But we have a lot of missing information.

So I did get to look at the data from some survey research done by a small group of independent people and it was really more consumer type of research because these people came from that industry and wanted to get to the bottom of this issue.

And so what what we could find from this… So basically these were people who had some kind of symptoms and were exposed to someone else who was vaccinated or other people — what I call vicarious exposure — by different degrees. And so, when we looked at the correlation between the degree of exposure — like, obviously, it’s a higher degree of exposure if it’s your spouse versus like some people that you work with at a part time job. Right?

So when we compare that to the presence of symptoms that were new symptom that could be related, what we found is really there was only a signal for intimate partners…

But I think there’s enough anecdotal evidence that also there may be something within with infants and nursing mothers. So, in other words, maybe there is something in the fluids and that if you pass it directly into another person, where it doesn’t sit in the environment… It’s like through intimate contact like sex or open mouth kissing or nursing. Right? So, in other words, a body fluid from the vaccinated person’s going directly into the body of an unvaccinated person.

That there may be a possibility of some kind of symptoms in that case. We don’t know from the research the severity of the symptoms in the person vicariously exposed. Only that there is a signal there. So further research will know…

There’s good news here because one — having casual contacts or a hug or working with people or even living with people that are like roommates — does not appear to be a risk.

And this is really positive because this is another issue that can divide the people against each other. And dividing people against each other allows the power elites who are trying to grab more power to do so…

That’s the strategy — essentially the strategy to develop communism or totalitarianism.

…

I feel pretty confident that it’s not a major issue except possibly for intimate partners. So that is enough information to inform people about what decisions to make in their life. And so I’m comfortable with kind of leaving that issue there…

The main thing that I would say is don’t go anywhere near any of these experimental vaccines. And if you don’t go near them, then you you’ll be fine from that perspective. There’s plenty of other things you’ll have to deal with but separate decisions.

###

So you know this is, in my opinion, an agenda that’s been long planned. And, basically, a march toward a technocratic totalitarian society.

And you can look back in lots of different writings about these kinds of plans and how the social engineering and cultural programming has taken place over the recent generations throughout the century.

In the twentieth century we’ve had just incredible examples of totalitarian takeovers. Right? And you could look at that these were all kind of experiments planning for this big one.

This is part of the UN agenda for the 21st century. And many other groups have talked about this. Obviously, the Great Reset in the World Economic Forum. They’re all the same thing.

It’s even printed on our money — a new order for the ages. Novus ordo seclorum is what’s on the dollar bill.

So this fake pandemic, or psychological operation of a pandemic, is specifically the way of generating enough fear to get people disoriented and in enough chaos that they agree to give up their freedoms in exchange for safety.

And this is the classic way, over and over again, that dictatorships have taken power. And so that’s exactly what you’re seeing and witnessing across the world right now — is the actual culmination of this plan that’s been going on.

Now, there’s only really one thing that you can do to stop this — both for yourself and for the rest of humanity. And is to simply say no.

You have to say no to everything. You have to say no to social distancing, masks, health questions, temperature guns. And, of course, most importantly, the jab and the passports.

And, in fact, the passports is really the turning point. Because once people are enrolled in this digital surveillance program, they will no longer be free or be able to be free.

And taking shortcuts or asking for permission, like asking for an exemption and things like that, is not saying no. And it essentially gives your approval for what is being done, not only by governments now, but by private businesses, employers and other agencies, in trying to coerce you to do things to your body.

Our bodies are our own property and no one else has the right to tell us or coerce us what to do with them. And so that would be my advice — is to learn how to say no, accept the consequences of that, and realize that it will work out well for you if you do this for the right reasons and have the right intention.

But there will be some short-term sacrifice and we need to be prepared for that. Because, if we’re not, then there’s going to be absolutely no freedom in the long term. And it will be much, much worse.

And anything that you think you’re risking and giving up now, you’re not going to have that in a few years anyway. You’re not going to have your same career and job, or ability to go on vacation and enjoy your family, and have luxury items or any of those things. Those things are all going to go away.

Now is the time that we have to say no and take some risks in order to stop the culmination of this plan.

---

Mentioned in the interview:

A Mind of Your Own by Dr. Kelly Brogan

Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Continually Invents Epidemics Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht (Author), Claus Köhnlein (Author), Samantha Bailey (Author), Stefano Scoglio (Author)

---

See related articles:

The Contagion Fairy Tale

Turning Virology & Modern Medicine on Its Head: Dr. Andrew Kaufman w/ Brian Young

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines”

Exposing the Lie — Hippocratic Hypocrisy: A Tale of Two Snakes

The Emperor Has No Corona

by ThoughtCrimes7
August 11, 2021



Available at ThoughtCrime7 BitChute and Odysee channels.

An investigation into the “Isolation” of the SARS-COV2 “virus”.

SOURCES:

Dr. Andrew Kaufman:
https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

SOVI – Statement on Virus Isolation – Add your name:
https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

Dr. Tom Cowan:
https://drtomcowan.com/

Only Poisoned Monkey cells Grew the Virus, article by Dr Tom Cowan:
https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/

Virus Mania, by Dr. Sam Bailey and Torsten Engelbrecht:
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/virus-mania-1

Torsten Engelbrecht:
https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/virus-mania-in-the-media/

Isolate the Truth Fund, 1.5 Million Euro Prize:
https://www.samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/

Christine Massey, Global FOIA Requests:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Dr. Stephan Lanka – CPE Produced without Virus:
https://odysee.com/@CosmicEvent:5/CPE—Control-Experiment—21-April-2021—English-version:0

Dr. Vincent Racaniello:
https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello

Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

GenBank:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

In-Silico PCR:
http://noncode.org/cgi-bin/hgPcr

 

---

See related:

Turning Virology & Modern Medicine on Its Head: Dr. Andrew Kaufman w/ Brian Young

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines”

 

Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical… Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio

 

 

The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads (2021) by Thomas S. Cowan MD and Sally Fallon Morell

 

 

cover image credit: Dieterich01 / pixabay

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines”

 

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:

In the video below Dean Braus brings together Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman to discuss mRNA vaccines, nanoparticles in vaccines and related topics. Dean begins the conversation with discussion of the following quote:

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
~ Heraclitus of Ephesus

There is an audio issue with much of Dr. Lanka’s contribution to the conversation, which included some discussion of Dr. Lanka’s CPE (Cytopathic Effect) experiment and ongoing research, as well as the refusal of mainstream medical science to give his research consideration. To understand more about his work, please see links to related articles, videos and pdf files that I’ve provided at the end of this article.

Below are a few brief excerpts from the wide-ranging conversation:

Tom Cowan:

 …The theory that we base our entire science and our entire medicine on — which we are only made of substance — it is simply incorrect.

…We are forced into a way of seeing the world — forced into saying that must be true. And yet we all know it’s not.

…At some point we have to acknowledge that the theory of medicine science is just wrong and we should abandon it.

Andy Kaufman:

…We are living in a time when science is not interested in finding the truth. It’s basically motivated by…political goals and and other purposes — financial incentives.

…As Tom alluded to, we’ve known that virology is not a valid science for a long time. And it’s very important — the control experiments — because they provide the empirical evidence that disproves the dogmatic virology theory.

…An average person can understand the significance of this control experiment because we’re saying that the alleged proof of the existence of a virus, and everything that is based upon that, comes from the experimental procedure itself — and not from the presence of anything real.

…I think there are a lot of unknowns right now. Like, we certainly know that these so-called vaccines — or these gene therapies — that they’re quite toxic. And we have incredible numbers of people experiencing very serious adverse effects and we have incredible numbers of people dying. But the truth is that we don’t really even know what’s in these injections.

We know from the past that undisclosed ingredients make it into vaccine products… We know that there is recent evidence that has perhaps not been validated but it’s still out there from La Quinta Columna about graphene. We know that in the past there has been DNA from fetal cell lines that’s been added to vaccines without being disclosed. And then we have observed some unusual phenomenon with respect to magnetism. And then if you look in the literature you see that there is an extreme amount of research published on nanotechnology for biomedical applications. And many of those are specifically for infectious disease and specifically for vaccine technology.

…And then we have this story about you know the gene therapy. And we know that this is been unsuccessful so far in other clinical pursuits.

…What we have seen as an explosion in GMO technology in other industries — in manufacturing, nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals and, as well, in agriculture and food especially, where we know that they alter the genotype and phenotype of organisms. So we know that they can hack our system in some ways that can change our physiology.

…So we don’t really know if this product actually integrates into the genetic machinery of the host or the protein manufacturing machinery of the host. And we don’t really know if the spike protein is actually made in our body. So, in other words, there’s evidence that the spike protein is toxic .. You can buy a commercial preparation… it’s an actual substance. Now whether it’s found in nature or not is a separate discussion. But it has been bought from those manufacturers and sold for research studies and shown to have a certain toxicity. But we don’t know if the toxicity from these products is from that spike protein because we don’t even know if it’s really made.

…We also don’t know with certainty if there is nanotechnology in addition to the lipid nanoparticles that are said to deliver the mRNA or the so-called adenovirus vector that’s in the Johnson & Johnson product. But we don’t know if there’s other nanotechnology. Like are their magnetic nanoparticles? Are there graphene nanoparticles? Is there hydrogel?

Tom Cowan:

…An RNA vaccine is trying to take over that which is basically the interaction of the human being with the world of light and sound and spirit and thoughts and emotions — and translate that into a living being.

Who’s ever doing this wants “them” to be the ones who determine what protein you make.

…The bad news is they’re trying to make us make what they want. The good news is — it doesn’t work like that, so they may not ever be able to do it.

…Like Andy said, nobody even has measured really whether they actually can get them to make spike proteins. My guess is they can’t really.

 

---

Freedom Talk 3

by Dean Braus, @DeansDanes Odysee channel
July 14, 2021

Impact of CPE Control Experiment. mRNA Vaccines, nanoparticles, outlook on projects.



Original video available at Dean’s Danes Odysee channel.

Also found at Dean’s Danes Odysee channel, see a brief video on Dr. Lanka’s CPE experiments.

 

---

 See related:

Documents

Dismantling the Virus Theory by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

The Causes of Corona Crisis Are Clearly Identified — Virologists Who Claim Disease-Causing Viruses Are Science Fraudsters and Must Be Prosecuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

How Dead Are Virus Anyway? All Claims of Virus Existence Refuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman (download PDF)

 

Video on Dr. Lanka’s work mentioned by Dean Braus

The Final Refutation Of Virology by Dr. Stefan Lanka

 

Related articles

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

 

Connect with Dr. Stefan Lanka: http://wissenschafftplus.de/

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan: http://drtomcowan.com/

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman: https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

Connect with Dean Braus: https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1

Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Dr. Tom Cowan: Healing Properties of Pure Gum Spirits of Turpentine

by Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
June 29, 2021

 



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

 

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: manfredrichter / pixabay

More on the Coronavirus That Doesn’t Exist; and the Pink Demon

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
May 21, 2021

 

(For Part-1, click here)

I still receive emails that announce: “So-and-so SAYS the virus has been isolated and does exist.”

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 would indicate “so what?” and 10 would rate “well, that’s it, the virus is real,” someone SAYING the virus exists comes in at minus-12.

Then there is the ever-popular, “OF COURSE this virus exists,” which is meant to dispel all doubt.

Below, I’ll reprint my piece in which Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1] analyzed, step-by-step, a typical excerpt from a published study. The excerpt described how SARS-CoV-2 was isolated. Dr. Kaufman tore the description to pieces. [2]

Since I published that article, I haven’t received a single communication attempting to refute Dr. Kaufman’s analysis.

I have received one or two emails stating, “Dr. Kaufman made several mistakes.” No specifics were mentioned. In the world of traditional logical fallacies, that response comes under the heading of “Vague Generalization.” Ninth-grade students used to be able to recognize it.

I’ve seen many articles in which SARS-CoV-2 is claimed to exist and possess various properties—the articles rely on bald statements from doctors or other so-called medical experts. No proof is offered. That logical fallacy would be Appeal to Authority: Because an authority figure says something is true, it must be true.

On this basis, the network evening news tells you all you need to know about reality.

A third fallacy is worth mentioning. We have this implied statement: “Researchers at the Wuhan Institute were weaponizing the virus; therefore, it exists.” That fallacy is called Circular Reasoning: You assume what you’re trying to prove. Many people fall for it.

“NASA scientists are chaining people to Ford trucks, preparing to launch them at faster-than-light speed in outer space; therefore, faster-than-light speed exists.”

What researchers are claiming or trying to do in a lab is not proof that the “thing” they are working with exists. The researchers may BELIEVE it exists, but what they believe doesn’t matter.

You might believe a pink demon with gold teeth from Mars has spread a pandemic across Earth, but even if Fauci agrees with you and has shoveled three million dollars to your lab, you haven’t established the existence of the demon.

A variation on Appeal to Authority and Vague Generalization: For more than a century, researchers have been doing experiments with viruses; therefore, it’s ridiculous to say SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist.

Well, historically, religious groups have claimed their God is the only God. Therefore…nothing.

“Wait. All those virologists couldn’t be lying and collaborating in a vast conspiracy.”

But they could be true believers. They could be pushing distorted science without recognizing their own warped articles of faith.

---

And with that, here is my article featuring Dr. Kaufman’s analysis of virus-isolation:

Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists.

by Jon Rappoport

April 21, 2021

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. Therefore, it exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [3].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. THAT’S THEIR KEY “EVIDENCE.” This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus” they never isolated. “We didn’t find it, we don’t know anything about it, but we sequenced it.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [4]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word, is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [5]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

---

SOURCES:

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/04/21/isolation-of-sars-cov-2-refuted-in-step-by-step-analysis-of-claim/

[3] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

[4] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

[5] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Dr. Andrew Kaufman Refutes “Isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; He Does Step-by-Step Analysis of a Typical Claim of Isolation; There Is No Proof That the Virus Exists

by Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News
April 21, 2021

 

The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”

But what if the virus doesn’t exist?

People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.

“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”

I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [1], and he provided his analysis in detail.

I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [2].

First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.

The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.

They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.

There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.

Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”

Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:

STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage…”

KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”

STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”

KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”

STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”

KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”

STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”

KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”

KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [3]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”

STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”

STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”

KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”

STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”

KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”

—end of study quotes and Kaufman analysis—

My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.

Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.

And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?

Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [4]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?

The answer is no.

---

SOURCES:

[1] https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

[2] https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

[3] https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home.html

[4] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/

 

Connect with Jon Rappoport

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

 

by Dean Braus, Dean’s Danes YouTube channel
March 4, 2021



Freedom Talk 1 – 4 March 2021 

Original video available at Dean’s Danes YouTube channel.

Tom, Stefan, Andy & Dean talk about individual responsibility and personal commitment.

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

See related:

The Misconception Called Virus by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

Statement of Virus Isolation | Conclusion: The SARS-CoV2 Virus Does Not Exist

Dr. Tom Cowan w/ Dr. Andrew Kaufman: We Have No Scientific Proof That Viruses Cause Disease — A Response to Dr. Judy Mikovits

The Contagion Fairy Tale by Dr. Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)

by Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Sally Fallon Morell
February 19, 2021

 

 

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)

 

Isolation: The action of isolating; the fact or condition of being isolated or standing alone;
separation from other things or persons; solitariness.

– Oxford English Dictionary

 

The controversy over whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated or purified continues. However, using the above definition, common sense, the laws of logic and the dictates of science, any unbiased person must come to the conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has never been isolated or purified. As a result, no confirmation of the virus’ existence can be found. The logical, common sense, and scientific consequences of this fact are:

• the structure and composition of something not shown to exist can’t be known, including the presence, structure, and function of any hypothetical spike or other proteins;
• the genetic sequence of something that has never been found can’t be known;
• “variants” of something that hasn’t been shown to exist can’t be known;
• it’s impossible to demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called Covid-19.

In as concise terms as possible, here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness. Without mixing these samples with ANY tissue or products that also contain genetic material, the virologist macerates, filters and ultracentrifuges i.e. purifies the specimen. This common virology technique, done for decades to isolate bacteriophages¹ and so-called giant viruses in every virology lab, then allows the virologist to demonstrate with electron microscopy thousands of identically sized and shaped particles. These particles are the isolated and purified virus.

These identical particles are then checked for uniformity by physical and/or microscopic techniques. Once the purity is determined, the particles may be further characterized. This would include examining the structure, morphology, and chemical composition of the particles. Next, their genetic makeup is characterized by extracting the genetic material directly from the purified particles and using genetic-sequencing techniques, such as Sanger sequencing, that have also been around for decades. Then one does an analysis to confirm that these uniform particles are exogenous (outside) in origin as a virus is conceptualized to be, and not the normal breakdown products of dead and dying tissues.² (As of May 2020, we know that virologists have no way to determine whether the particles they’re seeing are viruses or just normal break-down products of dead and dying tissues.)³

¹ Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, KenyaJuliah Khayeli Akhwale et al, PLOS One, Published: April 25, 2019.   https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734 — accessed 2/15/21

² “Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration,” Maojiao Li1 et al, Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2020 October 2.   https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.573511/full — accessed 2/15/21

³ “The Role of Extraellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses,” Flavia Giannessi, et al, Viruses, 2020 May

If we have come this far then we have fully isolated, characterized, and genetically sequenced an exogenous virus particle. However, we still have to show it is causally related to a disease. This is carried out by exposing a group of healthy subjects (animals are usually used) to this isolated, purified virus in the manner in which the disease is thought to be transmitted. If the animals get sick with the same disease, as confirmed by clinical and autopsy findings, one has now shown that the virus actually causes a disease. This demonstrates infectivity and transmission of an infectious agent.

None of these steps has even been attempted with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor have all these steps been successfully performed for any so-called pathogenic virus. Our research indicates that a single study showing these steps does not exist in the medical literature.

Instead, since 1954, virologists have taken unpurified samples from a relatively few people, often less than ten, with a similar disease. They then minimally process this sample and inoculate this unpurified sample onto tissue culture containing usually four to six other types of material — all of which contain identical genetic material as to what is called a “virus.” The tissue culture is starved and poisoned and naturally disintegrates into many types of particles, some of which contain genetic material. Against all common sense, logic, use of the English language and scientific integrity, this process is called “virus isolation.” This brew containing fragments of genetic material from many sources is then subjected to genetic analysis, which then creates in a computer-simulation process the alleged sequence of the alleged virus, a so called in silico genome. At no time is an actual virus confirmed by electron microscopy. At no time is a genome extracted and sequenced from an actual virus. This is scientific fraud.

The observation that the unpurified specimen — inoculated onto tissue culture along with toxic antibiotics, bovine fetal tissue, amniotic fluid and other tissues — destroys the kidney tissue onto which it is inoculated is given as evidence of the virus’ existence and pathogenicity. This is scientific fraud.

From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation. You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:

1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.
2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?

Finally, questioning these virology techniques and conclusions is not some distraction or divisive issue. Shining the light on this truth is essential to stop this terrible fraud that humanity is confronting. For, as we now know, if the virus has never been isolated, sequenced or shown to cause illness, if the virus is imaginary, then why are we wearing masks, social distancing and putting the whole world into prison?

Finally, if pathogenic viruses don’t exist, then what is going into those injectable devices erroneously called “vaccines,” and what is their purpose? This scientific question is the most urgent and relevant one of our time.

We are correct. The SARS-CoV2 virus does not exist.

Sally Fallon Morell, MA

Dr. Thomas Cowan, MD

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, MD

 

Add your voice to show support.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Connect with Sally Fallon Morell

Dr. Tom Cowan w/ Dr. Andrew Kaufman: We Have No Scientific Proof That Viruses Cause Disease — A Response to Dr. Judy Mikovits

 

Response to Judy Mikovits with Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman 

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman in conversation with Dr. Tom Cowan
September 29, 2021

 

This content features a discussion of the (lack of) scientific evidence for the proof of viruses alleged to cause disease in the context of a recently aired debate between Judy Mikovots, Ph.D. and Andrew Kaufman, M.D.



Video available at Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s Lbry channel and at Dr. Tom Cowan’s BitChute channel.

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

The original discussion between Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Judy Mikovits may be seen here:

https://rumble.com/vd4c17-special-event-roundtable-with-dr.-judy-mikovits-discussing-the-magic-virus-.html

Dr. Cowan’s website:
https://drtomcowan.com/

Dr. Kaufman’s website:
http://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

 

Exposing the Lie — Hippocratic Hypocrisy: A Tale of Two Snakes

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Spacebusters
June 5, 2020

 



Also available at SpaceBusters on YouTube and at Dr. Kaufman’s website.

A collaborative film by Spacebusters and Dr. Andrew Kaufman about how authentic medicine was hijacked by the power elite and turned into a deadly, sickness for profit industry.

Written by : Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Steven S. Busters
Produced by: Spacebusters
Technical advisor: Rosco S. Busters

Links

Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s YouTube channel
J.S. Bach Piano Concerto/D minor: Polina Osetinskaya & The Marlinsky String Orchestra, conducted by Anton Gakkel
History of Medicine Society
Things you don’t learn in medical school: Caduceus
The Caduceus vs the Staff of Asclepius
Medical Symbols in Practice: Myths vs Reality
Caduceus as a symbol of medicine
the Esoteric meaning of Mercury, Hermes and the Caduceus (Gemini)
the Esoteric meaning of the Rod of Moses, staff of Asclepius (Scorpio)
Organic Unity

---

[Truth Comes to Light Editor’s note: This transcript is provided by Truth Comes to Light as a service to sharing truth. It has not been verified by the authors, so 100% accuracy is not guaranteed.]

TRANSCRIPT

This tale of two snakes is the story of how medicine in the United States, and eventually the world, was subverted into a commerce business enterprise with the central goal of creating and maintaining illness throughout the population for profit.

We have been kept from fully developing our potential to reason, our intuition, to become enlightened and to be the godlike beings that is our true nature.

Animal man can be domesticated and controlled. Enlightened man cannot.

The unholy trinity of corporate allopathic medicine, which is our mainstream medical system today — utilizing synthetic Big Pharma drugs, surgery and radiation — drains the body’s corpuscles through medical treatment strategies based on suppressing symptoms through synthetic drugs instead of targeting the cause of disease and removing it.

What causes disease or cellular dis-ease?

Toxic industrial environments.  Toxic foods.  Over-acidic diets.  Polluted air and water.  Prolonged states of mental stress and emotional distress.  Lack of sleep. Drugs. Alcohol. Cigarettes. Electrosmog. Heavy-metal poisoning. Vaccines. And even prescription drugs.

The Rod of Asclepius has been the exoteric symbol for medical healing since as far back as 1400 to 1200 BC.

He was the son of Apollo, the god of healing, immortalized forever in the stars as Ophiuchus, the serpent holder standing on the male genital phallus and corpuscle destroyer, Scorpio, which we’ll cover in the plot twist at the end of this film.

It is the staff with the single snake, completely misunderstood exotericly, to be a symbol of the snakes possession of anti-venom against its own poisons and its ability to shed its skin and renew — an exoteric symbol of longevity and immortality.

But in 1902 a captain in the US Army Medical Corps mistook the caduceus for the Rod of Asclepius and he proposed the adoption of the caduceus as the Medical Corps official symbol.

The two-snake caduceus is the symbol of the Roman god Mercury, whereas the one-snake rod is the symbol of Asclepius.

Natural Healing

Before 1902, the caduceus was used as a symbol for commerce and companies in printing, as Mercury or Hermes was the messenger of the gods.

It was used in mining, chemistry and metallurgy, as alchemy was a hermetic science.

Exotericly Mercury is the god of commerce, trade, merchants, outlaws, thieves and tricksters and is represented by two serpents to show the opposing meanings of polarization.

One snake is the healing — remediating and curative — the upward flow of living corpuscles from the spleen to the cerebral crown chakra, supporting positive energy, inner development and enlightenment.

The other serpent is the poisonous, debilitating, drainage of the living corpuscles away from the higher-self, body and mind.

It is this second serpent that has infiltrated medicine.

It has convinced us that paying for poison is the cure for cellular poisoning.

It is no accident that this symbol was first adopted by the army. The bogus germ theory, driving allopathic medicine, states that microorganisms invade our bodies and require military defense.

This model of disease, the warfare model, where illness comes from an uncontrollable enemy outside of us, necessitates a drug from the medical machine as our only chance of survival. We fight this imagined enemy with chemical weapons and machines, just as any warfare.

Allopathic medicine blames these enemy diseases on bad genes or evil germs, mysterious and deadly cancers, unexplained autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases, and many more — always outside of our control with causes unknown and no ability to address or reverse ourselves.

Thus, we are dependent on the medical system to rescue us.

How did this happen?

In 1847 the American Medical Association was founded. The largest association of medical students and physicians — both doctors of medicine and doctors of osteopathy, which is a type of alternative medicine — much of which is now said to have no therapeutic value and is labeled pseudoscience by the medical cartel.

From the very beginning, the AMA urged all state governments to adopt measures to register all births, marriages and deaths, which is a form of commerce itself — the way shipments are registered to port authorities as property of the receiving country’s government.

In 1897 the AMA incorporated into a private corporation and by 1899 they were already pushing for mandatory, untested smallpox vaccinations.

Then, in 1901, the AMA started a committee on national legislation, starting the trend of non-elected NGOs directing elected lawmakers policy decisions.

In 1905 they created the Council on Pharmacy and Chemistry to set standards for drug manufacturing and advertising, asking drug companies to show proof of effectiveness of their drugs or pay corrupt bribes to “Doc” Simmons in order to advertise those drugs in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

They basically became the first drug catalog sales reps. Obviously, drug manufacturers had great incentive to get in good favors with “Doc” Simmons and the AMA, later known as the Big Pharma revolving door.

But the real horror started in 1904 when the AMA founded the Council on Medical Education to regulate medical schools and what type of medicine could be taught in them.

As osteopathic and homeopathic medicine had no commercial profit incentive to these snakes, they had to go.

From its earliest inception, the American Medical Association has had one principal objective: attaining and defending a total monopoly of the practice of medicine in the United States.

From its outset, the AMA made the unholy trinity of allopathy the basis of its practice.

Allopathy set up an intense rivalry with the prevalent 19th century School of Medicine, the practice of homeopathy.

The AMA is one of the biggest frauds in history, involved in medical bribery, racketeering, corruption, coercion, and deception.

The former quack heads of the organization — like the failed journalist “Doc” Simmons, who never attended a medical school or worked for an actual hospital, and his protege Dr. Morris Fishbein, an aspiring circus trapeze artist and part-time opera singer who never worked a day as a physician in his life, but somehow headed the American Medical Association — were to set the standard for the disgraceful fraud still going on to this day.

You can find the shocking details of this in the first two chapters of the book Murder by Injection.

In 1907 the American Medical Association involved the Carnegie Foundation in elaborating a book-length study of medical education in the United States and Canada, also known as the Carnegie Foundation Bulletin, Number Four.

Its author, Abraham Flexner, was an ambitious educator, neither a physician nor a medical scientist, but the brother of Simon Flexner, employed by the Rockefeller Institute for medical research. Later on, Flexner became the first director of the Rockefeller philanthropy programs in medical education.

Andrew Carnegie was regarded as the second richest man in history after John D. Rockefeller. While Carnegie played a leading role in the American steel industry and education, Rockefeller was interested in the oil industry and medical research.

Flexner’s report was published in 1910 and the purpose was to improve the quality of medical service by establishing professional medical education based on mainstream scientific principles.

But what was accepted as science in the early 20th century?

The theory of materialism — rising in the 17th century — holds that the only existing thing is matter, everything is composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness, human soul and spirit) are the result of material interactions.

In other words, matter is the only substance.

Scientific materialism or physicalism became the philosophical position of the early 20th century. The main statement of physicalism is that there are no kinds of things other than physical things.

Before the Flexner Report was released, twice as many physicians practiced alternative medicine than conventional allopathic medicine, and medical knowledge was taught in small private schools all over the United States.

The report changed everything. And backed by the police power of each American state, medical schools were obliged to follow the trends set by the Carnegie Foundation.

The Flexner Report stated that the human body belongs to the animal world. It is put together of tissues and organs. It grows, reproduces itself, decays, according to general laws. It is liable to attack by hostile physical and biological agencies.

Herbs, homeopathy, chiropractic & massage were demoted as quackery.

Small medical schools were either closed or merged into universities financially supported by large industrial companies.

In less than 10 years the number of medical schools dropped from 650 to just 50. The number of medical students decreased from 7500 to 2500 and they were unable to afford the high education fees.

The report included a detailed regulation of medical education and pharmacology as the only solution against dreadful diseases.

According to the present day consequences of this report, no medical school can be created without the permission of government and medical research adheres fully to the protocols of scientific research of the 1910s — materialism, medication and vaccination.

Supply of physicians were restricted, incomes of the remaining practitioners raised, and conventional medical schools began to be centralized.

in 1997 the WHO obtained full control over medicine, as the validity of the Flexner report extended worldwide.

And what was the long-term result of reforming medical education and practice?

Hardly any news on the media.

According to the 2003 medical report Death by Medicine, 784,000 people in the United States die every year from conventional medicine mistakes.

This is 16,400% of the victims of September 11th, 2001 — the equivalent of six jumbo jet crashes a day for an entire year. A hundred and six thousand of these deaths each year are from prescription drugs.

The United States spends 282 billion dollars annually on deaths due to medical mistakes or iatrogenic deaths. According to a 1995 US iatrogenic report, the annual automobile accident mortality rate is 45,000 people. On the other hand, annually over a million patients get injured in hospitals and 280,000 of these cases result in death.

In 2004 the US spent 1.4 trillion dollars, 15,5% of the GDP, on health care. More than one third was paid to the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2010 alone, the top 20 pharmaceutical companies profited the equivalent of $97 per person times six billion people.

Back in 2001 Pfizer was the number-one most profitable company — with 7.8 billion dollar profit — of all the Fortune 500 companies.

In 2002 the combined profits of the top 10 drug companies of the Fortune 500 were nearly 36 billion dollars. That is more than the profits of the other 490 businesses put together.

After a hundred years, we must raise the question: what went wrong?

Despite the huge amount of money accumulated by the pharma industry, there are more dreadful diseases and sick people today than ever. You will find the answers in the Flexner Report — a document that created and enabled the terms of a centralized medical system and the pharma industry to take over the control of healthcare for profit.

“When we interfere with the processes of nature, and breed efficient plants and efficient animals, there’s always some way in which we have to pay for it. We do not really know how to interfere with the way the world is…

The way the world actually is, is an enormously complex, interrelated organism. The same problem arises in medicine because the body is a very complex, interrelated organism.

And if you look at the body in a superficial way, you may see there’s something wrong with it.

Here’s chicken pox.

And there’s spots that itch that come out all over the place. Well, you might say ‘Well, spots are there. Cut ’em off,’  So you kill the bug. Well, then you find you got real problems.

Well, then you think ‘Well now, wait a minute, it wasn’t the bugs in the blood. There are bugs all over the place.

What was wrong with this person?

His resistance wasn’t out there.

For what you should have given him was not an antibiotic but vitamins…

See, we always look at the human being medically, in bits and pieces, because we have heart specialists, lung specialists, bone specialists, nerve specialists and so on.

And they each see the human being from their point of view. There are a few generalists, but they realize the human body is so complicated that no one mind can understand it.”

~ Alan Watts

And that’s the problem with compartmentalized allopathic medicine.

Imagine your car doesn’t work because it’s out of gas and has a dead battery.

The allopathic, Big Pharma approach is to charge you big money to send five people to push your car. And then they say ‘See, it’s moving. We’ve fixed it.’

Sure it’s moving, but not very fast. Nothing inside works without power and you won’t make it more than a few miles before those people are too tired to push, no matter how much you pay them.

A mechanic wouldn’t fix a blown engine valve or gasket leaking oil by telling you to just add more oil every day. That would be stupid. You have to fix the cause.

But this logic is perfectly normal in modern medicine. We end up with specialists and general practitioners trained in which symptoms hint at which specific part of the physical anatomy may be in dis-ease — but have zero non-specialized education in nutrition, biochemistry, plant medicines, molecular biology, naturopathy, homeopathy, exercise, psychology or any other sciences that can tell them how to diagnose and eliminate the cause of cellular dis-ease.

So out of ignorance and frustration, they are left with three unholy options.

Synthetic Drugs

Most synthetic drugs circulate through the entire body and have a chemical effect on every biological system in the body, not just the specific area of cellular dis-ease they are meant to help.

While they may sometimes help the problem area, they simultaneously disrupt perfectly working functions in other parts of our body.

Have you ever noticed the dozens of side effects listed on drug inserts or at the end of commercial disclaimers?

This is why: [Commercial for Chantix]

“Kurt quit smoking with Chantix and support. Talk to your doctor about Chantix and a support plan that’s right for you. Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping Chantix. If you notice agitation, hostility, depression or changes in behavior, thinking or mood that are not typical for you, or if you develop suicidal thoughts or actions, stop taking Chantix and call your doctor right away. Talk to your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems which can get worse while taking Chantix. Some people can have allergic or serious skin reactions to Chantix, some of which can be life-threatening. If you notice swelling of face, mouth, throat or a rash, stop taking Chantix and see your doctor right away. Tell your doctor which medicines you’re taking as they may work differently when you quit smoking. Chantix dosing may be different if you have kidney problems. The most common side effect is nausea. Patients also reported trouble sleeping and vivid, unusual or strange dreams. Until you know how Chantix may affect you, use caution when driving or operating machinery. Chantix should not be taken with other quit-smoking products.

‘The urges weren’t like they used to be and that helped me quit.’

Talk to your doctor to find out if prescription Chantix is right for you.”

Talk to your doctor to see if a drug twenty times more dangerous than smoking is right for you?

Then these “side effects” require more drugs to balance the new problems caused by the first drug. And on and on this vicious circle goes.

Because these drugs relieve symptoms, but don’t eliminate the cause of the cellular dis-ease, many people are on their meds for life — raking in huge repeat customer profits for the big pharma snakes.

Surgery

After enough neglect — cells, tissues and organs eventually die, putrefy and go into sepsis  — inducing internal bacteria to eat you alive.

Rather than addressing and reversing the reasons why, the allopathic strategy is to just remove parts or all of various organs, or even hack off the limbs — not stop the cause.

And when the dis-ease expresses itself again, they’ll just cut out more of you, until there’s nothing left of you to cut out anymore.

But don’t worry, your insurance will pay for it. And, if not, they’ll take your house and life savings in return for the “favor”.

Surgery has been around since ancient times. And there are brilliant trauma, heart and transplant surgeons — and others — saving millions of lives when absolutely no other option is left.

This is in no way meant to attack them.

But allopathic medicine is the reason we now need so many of them so often.

Radiation

You already know about the effects of acute radiation syndrome on cellular biology.

To even discuss the absurdity of this allopathic form of medical treatment, as some sort of cure for cellular dis-ease, is an insult to human intelligence — sheer lunacy. So we won’t even bother going there.

If your doctor even suggests this — run very far and fast.

“A better thing to talk about, however, is the relationship between profits and cancer. In the United States, there was a study that was published — I believe it was in 1994 — it was a 12 year program, 12-year study.

They looked at adults who had developed cancer as an adult — not childhood cancer, but adult cancer. Right? This is the main type of cancer that we get here in the United States. They did a meta-analysis of these people, all around the world, who developed cancer as adults for 12 years and were treated with chemo.

They looked at the results and they published the results in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. And the results?  Ninety-seven percentof the time chemotherapy does not work. Ninety-seven percent of the time it doesn’t work.

So why is it still used? It’s one reason and one reason only. Money.

If you go to a medical doctor, an MD, with a sinus infection and that doctor prescribes an antibiotic, he gets no financial kickback. Now if he prescribes 5000, you know, of that antibiotic in one month, the drug company that makes it might send him to Cancun for a conference. Right? But he gets no direct remuneration.

It’s not… with chemotherapeutic drugs it’s different.  Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets direct cut of.

So, if your doctor prescribes chemotherapy for you, here’s how it goes, more or less:

The doctor buys it from the pharmaceutical company for five thousand dollars, sells it to the patient for $12,000. Insurance pays nine thousand dollars and the doctor pockets the four thousand dollar difference. And there ought to be a law.

The only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it. Period.

It doesn’t work! Ninety-seven percent of the time!

If Ford Motor Company made an automobile that exploded 97% of the time, would they still be in business? No.

This is the tip of the iceberg of the control that the pharmaceutical industry has on us.

We — most people — have no idea of this at all now.

I wrote a book it’s called The MD Emperor Has No Clothes. Right?

In my book, I have a bulleted list of 10 questions that every cancer patient could ask their doctor. Ten questions.

I’ve had patients checked out, literally kicked out of the oncologists office, because the doctor was p-o’d that the patient was asking them these questions. And these are just common sense questions.

Cancer treatment in the United States — we have lost the war on cancer. We have lost the war on cancer.

Why?

Because cancer is not a reductionistic phenomenon. Cancer is a holistic phenomenon.

When you try to bring a reductionistic methodology, like drugs and surgery, to bear on a holistic phenomenon, you will completely miss the boat each and every time.

Medical doctors are like colorblind art critics. They can see that that’s a boat — they can see the black and white outline — but they’re completely blind to all of colors and textures that make up the substance of the thing.

It’s no difference with cancer. The reason that people get cancer in the United States, and the reason that we have completely lousy outcomes, is because medical doctors are driving the research bus.

When women get together and do a 5k run for breast cancer, all of that money — do you think any of that money goes to nutritional research?

Do you think any of that money goes to homeopathic research? Or acupuncture? Or traditional Chinese medicine? Or naturopathic research? No.

All of it goes to drugs and surgery — which do not work.

Now, why aren’t those women running for selenium? If every girl in this country took 200 micrograms of selenium, in one generation we’d eliminate breast cancer by 82%.

That’s a big number.

Why aren’t we doing that? Because medicine in the United States is a for-profit industry and most people are completely unaware of this. And most people bow down to the altar of MD-directed high-tech medicine.”

~ Dr. Peter Glidden, ND

READ… Mustard gas – from the Great War to frontline chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is in fact nitrogen mustard, the cell killing compound used to make chemical warfare mustard gas n World War I and II,

Why does it have a 97% failure rate?

It doesn’t just kill cancer cells. it kills all cells.

It’s poison.

The exoteric correlation between the caduceus and our double helix DNA cannot be ignored — as DNA alteration is the target of Bill Gates and the current Big Pharma vaccine cartel — set to become the world’s first medical mafia trillionaires.

“They’re using a new technology for this vaccine, which they say allows them to develop it more rapidly.

But, you know, they’ve developed it in record time. I mean, obviously they have developed this before–  before the plandemic actually came to fruition. But what these vaccines are is, they have DNA. 

And they — using this technology called microporation, where they apply an electric current through two additional needles. And it causes little holes to open up in your cells, so that this foreign DNA can go into your cells and basically turn you into a genetically modified organism

Now they say that the gene is the gene of a virus, so we’re gonna have our own cells making virus proteins and somehow that’s gonna trigger an immune response.

You know, I don’t buy that at all.

S,o what these genes are I don’t know.

You know, I have some guesses because I know one of the goals of the vaccine is for infertility. Right? Because it’s all about population reduction.”

~ Dr. Andrew Kaufman

By either coincidence or conspiracy, at the very same time the WHO and NGOs were giving out hundreds of millions of free poisonous smallpox vaccines all over Africa.

The continent erupted with the biggest autoimmune disorder epidemic in known history.

What wasn’t free, and ended up indebting several African governments, were the hundreds of millions of PCR tests already manufactured to test for the new unheard of autoimmune disorder called HIV/AIDS.

READ… WHO Admits That Smallpox Vaccine Created AIDS/HIV

And the bogus-treatment-drug AZT — called one of the most toxic, expensive and controversial drugs in the history of medicine — this disease may result in the deaths of 90 million African people by the year 2025.

We saw the same trend in India when a polio epidemic and hundreds of thousands of paralyzed children coincided with a mass polio vaccination campaign there.

And today, we can now recognize the same alarming pattern happening with the blatant fudging of statistics and the orchestrated villainization of the common cold and flu — to force a worldwide multi-trillion-dollar profit vaccination agenda.

“There’s no paper that shows, based on its experiment, that this virus causes anything. So there’s not one paper and the conclusion that said ‘as a result of this study, we’ve determined that this virus is the cause of this disease’.

So that’s not even stated in the literature as a conclusion.

But if, in fact, if you look at the methods that they use to supposedly isolate viruses, they’re doing no such thing whatsoever.

And this was really something that I learned about only in studying this illness, because I had looked into germ theory, and I knew germ theory had lots of experiments that disproved it. And that it was, you know, something that was pervasive in medicine.

But what I’ve ultimately come to learn is that they discovered a technique that essentially has these culture cells decay. And they say that that’s proof that a virus is causing the decay of those cells.

But, in actuality, they’ve never run a control experiment. And what they’re doing is taking those cells and giving them inadequate nutrition, and exposing them to toxic chemicals. And so, that’s the reason the cells are decaying.

And that’s the only thing that they say that proves a virus.

So they’ve not actually isolated any virus whatsoever. They have shown that they can do this isolation technique in bacterial viruses. They call them bacteriophages. And they’ve shown that they can use this technique to isolate exosomes. And the technique is fairly simple.

You just filter out these small particles and then you put them through a centrifuge to have them segregate together based on their density. And then you hold a syringe or a pipette and you can look at them under the microscope.

You can characterize them chemically. You can take out the genetic material and sequence it.

And they’ve done these experiments for exosomes and bacteriophages. But they’ve never done it for a virus. And the simple reason is because there must not be any virus, that exists, that causes disease.

So they have this other procedure that just shows damage to cells in a culture and they say that that’s evidence of a virus. And it’s really quite astounding when I uncovered this. Because it’s not just in the studies for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that, you know, they say is associated with COVID-19, but it’s true for every single virus paper that I’ve looked at for any type of virus.

So really, there’s really no evidence that any virus that is alleged to cause a disease has ever been isolated, or proven to cause any disease whatsoever.”

~ Dr. Andrew Kaufman

___

“Yeah and here we see this response, which is unprecedented.

And the interesting thing, like you mentioned exosomes. And in one of the first discussions that I heard you talk about this, you mentioned the fact that, well actually, when you look at an exosome, you look at its makeup, you look at the way it reacts and its characteristics, and then you look at COVID-19. Well, you go, well hey, it’s actually exactly the same thing.

So they’ve basically taken this normal part of our immune system, which is just a response to toxicity in the cells, and categorize it as this terrible pandemic. And it’s going to appear in basically anybody who’s stressed or got toxicity in the cell.

So it’s a total win-win situation for them. But there appears that there is no virus at all. They’re simply, you know, re-diagnosed or re-labeled, part of our immune system. And the response has been like, you know, it’s been over-the-top. Absolutely over-the-top.

And even when you look at the death figures for this year, it’s less deaths this year than it has been for the last five years. And no one seems to be dying of anything else anymore.”

~ Max Igan

___

“Well, essentially — see what what they’re seeing under the microscope — it could very well be exosomes because they’ve they pretty much created a recipe to make exosomes. Because they’re usually using monkey kidney cells for this purpose and they’re mixing it with antibiotics. And it’s well known that antibiotics induce exosomes. But the thing is that these cells are basically dying cells and they’re putting out all kinds of debris.

And early on, in the study of virology, they actually really wrestled with this problem and pretty much gave up on trying to find a virus — until this new technique that I described was invented. So we could very well be seeing pictures of exosomes when we see those pictures But they could also be other kinds of cellular debris particles.

The thing i, we just don’t know because they’ve never taken those particles and then purified them and characterized exactly what they are. So that’s really never been done. And what you’re talking about with the test — the test is a little bit different because the PCR test, which is the main test, it doesn’t test for a virus at all. What that tests for is a sequence of RNA, which is genetic material.

And the way they obtain that is also — they take the impure sample basicall, like the lung fluidn  ithis case, from some people who are sick or possibly a throat swab. And they amplify short little sequences. And sequences that they’re specifically looking for mostly because they have this library of gene sequences of viruses.

But the thing is, if you go back, they’ve always characterized them this way. So they’ve never once had a intact virus particle and then sliced it open and taken the RNA out and done a sequence from end to end.

That’s never been done. What they do instead is, they take this impure sample and they look for specific sequence that they’ve pre-identified as being viral in nature from this database. And then what they’re doing is amplifying these short little sequences — maybe 150 to 250 base pairs — and they’re splicing them together into this one long strand of 30,000 which they say is the viral genome. But it’s actually just this Frankenstein-type of assembly of all these little pieces that we don’t even have any proof they’re related. They could even come from different types of cells or different creatures.

And when there’s gaps, they’re basically using sequences that they get from that database of other viruses that are also put together in this Frankenstein-type way. And they sew all those together, you know, and say that this is the sequence, the genome sequence of this virus.

And that’s the procedure. And that’s — they’re testing for something from that. But we don’t really know what it is. Except it’s most likely our own sequences.

So that’s why there’s so many positive results, because they’re essentially testing our own genetic sequences.”

~ Dr. Andrew Kaufman

In other words, more medical fraud for profit and control by keeping people in fear and ignorance of the truth — the promised plot twist.

Which is the actual, secret, hidden and misunderstood esoteric meaning of Mercury — the metaphoric symbol representing the higher mind, spirit and belief. In the Cerebrum and his caduceus are actual two hemisphere cerebrum, spinal cord, cerebrospinal fluid and two snakes representing the two sensory and motor nervous systems of our body, through which we experience everything.

The science of epigenetics states that what you are thinking is translated by the brain into body chemistry that will determine what you physically become.

As Dr. Bruce Lipton explains, the function of Mercury or mind is to create coherence between what we believe and the physical reality that we experience.

If you believe there’s a threat, signals of threat released into the blood will prepare the cells to engage in a protection area response. But if the perceived threat is imaginary stress, emotion or worry from an imbalanced mind, our cells don’t know if a threat is real or not — because cells only respond to the chemicals. They do not see the real external environment.

If we believe we are under threat or stress, we manifest stress in our cellular physiology, even though the environment in which we live is not really promoting that. Our thoughts, Mercury, whether they are right or wrong are actually changing our cellular biology through his caduceus.

What we think we become. Signal plus protein equals behavior.

So when our behavior is not supporting health or us, we can say we are expressing dis-ease.

So it’s either defective proteins or the signal causing disease. Defective proteins lead to defective functions creating disharmonious behavior in your cells which can cause disease.

Which is why a COVID-19 vaccine, using electroporation to fuse foreign bat or pig DNA into your cells, to create new protein instruction codes, is most certainly going to lead to both disease and your demise.

Luckily for those wise enough to reject the new RNA/DNA recombinant COVID-19 vaccines, flawed protein expression genes caused less than 1% of all natural disease. The signal causes up to 90% of all dis-ease.

How can it interfere with health? Trauma — physical damage to the brain, spine or parts of the body related to the nervous system — can interfere with the flow of information from the nervous system to the cells, altering communication and leading to a misunderstanding by the responding cells — because the signals are altered.

Toxins cause disease by interfering with the propagation of the signals from the brain to the cells. If we put toxic elements into our body, including vaccine adjuvants and even toxins from eating industrial farmed food, these toxic chemicals can engage in the signal pathway.

But if they do, they don’t promote a normal signal propagation. Toxic chemistry can distort the signal.

If the brain is sending a signal to control the cells and there’s toxic chemistry in the pathway, then the signal that reaches the cell is altered, and then the behavior of the altered cell can lead to disease.

But the real secret of Mercury mind, is that our thoughts become translated into chemistry that can either cure or create disease.

A dis-ease caused by thought is not because the body is defective, it’s because the signal is inappropriate.

Because this esoteric science is hidden — consciousness, emotion, worry and stress are the primary problems contributing to issues regarding health on this planet. Too many people are sending inappropriate signals at inappropriate times, leading to inappropriate behavior which we call disease or dis-ease.

The truth is that these are two sides to the same coin.

Metaphysically, mercury is mind.

Physiologically, Mercury is the nerves and the cerebrospinal system. The cerebrospinal system is the generator and carrier of physicochemical electricity, which is simply energy or life.

Our mind and the sensory nerves utilize the electrical energy of thought and the subtle nerve fluids in the cerebral spinal fluid.

Depending on our thoughts and actions, Mercury may do this beneficially and positively, or negatively and destructively.

Chemically, Mercury is quicksilver which, is an oily fatty substance. the “argentum vivum” or “living philosophical silver” that rises back up from our sacrum to our cerebrum to be converted back to electricity infinitely if not wasted

The real interpretation of “quick” means living.

And as oil is the physical manifestation of energy, mercury or quicksilver, means the oil of life.

We are told by the AMA that a quack is a medical charlatan. Takes one to know one.

But actually quack is short for the 1570s Dutch term quacksalver or the German quacksalber, and the Danish quakzalver, meaning “hawker of salve” or oil or to rub with ointment.

Quakzalver sounds remarkably close to quicksilver. Wouldn’t you say

As usual, the snakes have inverted the true meaning of healing — for profit.

And that is the real reason Mercury is the father of merchants and thieves.

Mind, which is the father of thought, can actually rob the physical body by wasting living electricity through thought, emotion, action and physical merchandise — through riotous and gluttonous thought and living habits.

The “brain esse”[esence] and thought power or electricity constitute the true merchandise of every human body.

And thus, the job of the great physician Mercury, your mind, is to electrochemically heal all dis-eases.

Not just through pure thought and action, but through pure food sustenance and plant medicine on the physical plane. The cerebrospinal fluid around our brain, spinal cord, and nerves, cushions those organs.

It picks up supplies from the blood and gets rid of toxic waste products. It is a colorless, transparent alkaline fluid — 99% water, 1% monoatomic potassium — which creates healing and toxic-dissolving oils, glucose, protein amino acid molecules, enzymes, hormones, antibodies, etc.

It is how the brain talks to cells.

In esoteric biblical biochemistry, the healing Rod of Asclepius is the staff of Moses.

The electrical seed germination that creates the healing corpuscles of the cells (created in our spleen) that make up our blood, lymph and nerve endings, brought down to the spleen from the cerebrum (or Aries the lamb or Ram of God), also known as Brahma or Abraham, by Mercury, the messenger of the Godhead.

That is why Moses, or the electric seed of the corpuscles, is the descendant of Abraham, our cerebrum.

The winged caduceus of Mercury is the Tree of Life.

While the serpents represent the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or cellular ease and dis-ease, one is the sensory system, the other the motor system, doing work pertaining to motion. But perverted it becomes e-motion, meaning energy wasted, substance lost, death and dis-ease.

All around us today, we see its effect.

Humanity as a whole, floundering in chaos instead of harmony, lost in a sea of emotion — energy wasted, substance lost.

The blood corpuscles carry not only nutriment to every cell, but air as well. Our cerebral cells, as well as all other cells, must be supplied with the proper mineral foods and salts, and kept free from acid accumulation and toxic poison.

Each individual has his own Tree of Life. No one but himself can destroy that tree and no one but himself can cultivate it or supply it with nutriment.

There are links to details on this beautiful esoteric science in the description.

But know that oils neutralize and dissolve body toxins and poisons.

Water keeps fibers fluid and in motion.

Spirit (electricity) moves the body and the 12 mineral salts that manifest electricity to biology are the physical body.

 

 

At a glance, on the surface symbols, are just pictures that represent an idea in the consciousness of those who look at them. But while we may think symbols are just pictures, they do act on our subconscious mind to bring about the desired influence of the sigil creator.

The actual intent of the symbol may be unknown to the viewer or even be inverted in its true meaning. For example the peace symbol, or inverted Algiz, is actually a Proto-Germanic death ruin that was inscribed on tombstones. Death is peace.

The swastika had a positive meaning in ancient times. Its Sanskrit name was svasktika, literally meaning “it is”, well being, good existence, and good luck.  For the Hindus it was a symbol for Vishnu and the Sun or, when inverted, Kali and magic.

Thus we can invert the meaning of the caduceus to serve our health, rather than drain our corpuscles.

In our current reality, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and poison is medicine. But it does not have to be that way, if we do not want it to.

You can decide yourself, right now, that poison is poison, but plants, clean nutrient-filled food and positive mind is medicine.

Our bodies have amazing capabilities to heal if we simply provide the right environment, free of toxins, full of nutrition, purity of mind and spirit.

There is no form of cellular disease we cannot heal from.

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Free PDF Books

Murder by Injection by Eustace Mullins

Death by Medicine by Gary Null PhD,
Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD,
Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith Phd

The MD Emperor Has No Clothes by Dr. Peter Glidden, ND

The Zodiac and the Salts of Salvation by George W. Carey