💾 Archived View for soviet.circumlunar.space › dsfadsfgafgf › gemlog › kaufman.gmi captured on 2022-03-01 at 15:09:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Clint > richard-son - realitybloger.wordpress.com - Thu 15 Apr 2021
–=–
–=–
The purpose of this research project is to refute and put to sleep the popular,
socially harmful meme that:
1. Viruses and indeed “germs” don’t exist, because apparently they don’t stand
up to Koch’s postulates on bacteria.
2. Viruses are actually spawned internally, such as exosomes, and somehow
appear inside the body (terrain) without external forces.
3. Therefore, the non-scientifically induced conclusion from these unproven
ideas is that “Germ theory” is false. This loose paradigm is most often an
attribution based off of a non-scientific, faith-based debate between germ
theory and terrain theory.
After a deep dive into the subject, giving all neutrality and fairness to both
sides of the apparent debate (actually, there was never any real debate, just a
carefully crafted false dialectic), here is a summary of my conclusions, as
shown and detailed in triplicate within the bulk of this research project:
1. The idea of the “non-existence” of viruses and germs is a non-sequitur
(non-starter), even and especially according to the sources provided to
prove the fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back the “viruses don’t
exist” model.
2. Koch’s postulates were never intended to be applied to viruses, only to
bacteria, therefore they are simply not applicable to research into viral
pathogens, a fact that even Koch himself was adamant about on the record.
This factual history is obfuscated in any discourse, of course, to enforce
the false narrative. History, be it true or false, is often used as a
liar’s main weapon.
3. Ironically, Bacteria are listed in the definition of what a “germ” is, so
it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that germs don’t exist while also
promoting Koch’s specific bacteriological Postulates as evidence thereof.
On a side note, without the appropriately labeled germ line, there would be
no human or other life on Earth. This is an essential point, a self-evident
Truth that will be explained below, and which destroys the whole false
paradigm.
4. Most importantly, this entire paradigm rests on the clearly false dialectic
(pre-meditated lie) that these two theories, germ and terrain theory, are
somehow opposed to each other. In fact, they are very much compatible,
complimentary, and in some ways quite dependent upon one another. A clean
terrain (healthy systems of the body) is certainly more capable of
responding to the presence of immunocompromising germs than a dirty or
unhealthy terrain (such as that which causes a lowered immune system and
response). Ultimately, this is another self-evident Truth. These two
theories are not at all, in any way opposed to each other, except by the
intentional manipulation and false dialectic provided by this so-called
“Dr.” Kaufman and his parroting, profiteering cohorts, which is then
repeated without understanding or scientific examination by their unwitting
followers.
–=–
–=–
Before we tackle the bulk of this false paradigm and expose what is obviously a
deliberately misleading obfuscation and concerted twisting of facts, we must
first rehash in our minds just what the Hegelian notion of this type of
intentionally false dialectic consists of. It’s this concept of inventing and
deliberating over a false dialectic instead of the actual positive scientific
evidence held contrary to the false dialectic that must be understood here. The
newly opposing dialectic acts as a sort of stand in, a fallacious strawman
argument that is presented in the typical manner of Zetetic non-science, as a
negatively closed consensus, where the burden of proof is passed from the
inventor (based on a non-scientific methodology) to the skeptic. This new,
negative theory is essentially a character attack on those that “believe” in
what is scientifically known or currently best-theorized, or that is popular
opinion.
And it’s very clever, casting faith-based doubt in the minds of the masses over
that which they cannot actually see with their own eyes, despite the entirety
of the published scientific methodology that offers meticulous proofs and
photographic evidence and despite the open and active for-profit market of
corporations that sell viruses and other germs for laboratory use. In other
words, instead of proving that viruses don’t exist, which is in fact impossible
(one cannot prove a negative), all others that “believe” in the popular
comprehension of these physically unseen viruses are thus required to prove
they do exist. But there are rules to this game, for at the same time the
entirety of scientific and research journal materials submitted by all
virologists and all other lab experiments around the world and throughout
history are at the same time absolutely dismissed as unacceptable evidence.
This, of course, leaves the scientific mind without any acceptable research or
visual evidence while considering microscopic, unable-to-be-seen pathogens.
And so the false dialectic quite often relies not on proof of its own concept
but of fallaciously “cancelling” that which is the proofs of the truth,
creating in both sides of any argument the illusion of equal footing. This
essentially boils down to a character assassination, but only after the
scientific theory is turned into a meme, given a personification of sorts, so
that those that support scientific outcome can be labeled as that persona, as
virus-believers. Crazy germ lovers. Thus the character, the false persona
created can then be attacked instead of the actual scientific evidence, even
though there is no actual character to attack but what they create as part of
their false dialectic.
We are constantly bombarded with such absurdities throughout social and other
media platforms, be they mainstream or alternative. The resulting meme caused
by the false dialectic is key to spreading and instilling a faith-based belief
in the lie, by necessarily demonizing the truth and those that attempt to
follow it. Even while 90% truth is being told within the false dialectic, the
transplanted 10% lies and obfuscated facts are enough not only to mislead but
to cause a denial of scientific thought and processes toward the determination
of correct answers.
Let us refresh our understanding of the general Hegelian false dialectic by
quoting from the [1] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
–=–
1. Hegel’s description of his dialectical method
(Note: most citations removed for ease of reading.)
Hegel provides the most extensive, general account of his dialectical method in
Part I of his Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, which is often called
the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL] . The form or presentation of logic, he says, has
three sides or moments. These sides are not parts of logic, but, rather,
moments of “every concept”, as well as “of everything true in general” (we will
see why Hegel thought dialectics is in everything in [2] section 3). The first
moment—the moment of the understanding—is the moment of fixity, in which
concepts or forms have a seemingly stable definition or determination.
The second moment—the “dialectical” or “negatively rational” moment—is the
moment of instability. In this moment, a one-sidedness or restrictedness in the
determination from the moment of understanding comes to the fore, and the
determination that was fixed in the first moment passes into its opposite.
Hegel describes this process as a process of “self-sublation”. The English verb
“to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb aufheben,
which is a crucial concept in his dialectical method. Hegel says that aufheben
has a doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at
the same time. The moment of understanding sublates itself because its own
character or nature—its one-sidedness or restrictedness—destabilizes its
definition and leads it to pass into its opposite. The dialectical moment thus
involves a process of self-sublation, or a process in which the determination
from the moment of understanding sublates itself, or both cancels and
preserves itself, as it pushes on to or passes into its opposite.
(Clint’s comment: The word sublate is defined as a verb, meaning to DENY. Thus,
this sense of both preserving and also negating (pretending to “cancel”) that
which is preserved leads to cognitive dissonance when armed with the
well-organized false dialectic, which confuses or confounds the first or
original fixed understanding. This is often labeled as “denialism.” But for the
denial to exist and subsist, so too must the original theory be preserved. In
other words, denial is like a parasite that cannot survive by itself. Denial
must preserve the memory of its host to have purpose and meaning. Otherwise,
the denialism itself would be open to cross-denial, to criticism, and to
disproof. Thus that which is denied, the original, must be preserved in the
false dialectic in order to redirect the brunt of criticism to the original. A
parasite, like a virus, has no reason or intent and cannot therefore exist
without its victimized, reprogrammed host. The false dialectic is necessarily a
parasite, existing only to feed off of the denial and confusion created by its
literal camouflage. The lie exists only to cover up and vampirically subsist on
the truth. Thus the false dialectic cannot exist without the preservation of
that which it parasites from. Or, considering Dr. Kaufman and his lies, one
could say that the viral lie that is the false dialectic cannot be “isolated”
from the host-truth. There is no purpose behind a virus (parasite) without an
intended or accidental host. There is no purpose behind Kaufman’s false
dialectic without an intention to reprogram the host theory. One cannot suggest
that viruses don’t exist without the pre-existing and fixed idea that viruses
exist in the first place. Without the original determination that viruses
exist, there is no way to determine they don’t. The positive determination must
come before the negative, dialectical dissolution. It cannot reasonably,
scientifically, or logically stand on its own, lest it be immediately
criticized and disproven. The host always inadvertently, unwittingly protects
its parasite from harm.)
The third moment—the “speculative” or “positively rational” moment—grasps the
unity of the opposition between the first two determinations, or is the
positive result of the dissolution or transition of those determinations. Here,
Hegel rejects the traditional, reductio ad absurdum argument, which says that
when the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, then the premises
must be discarded altogether, leaving nothing. As Hegel suggests in the
Phenomenology, such an argument:
is just the skepticism which only ever sees pure nothingness in its result
and abstracts from the fact that this nothingness is specifically the
nothingness of that from which it results.
Although the speculative moment negates the contradiction, it is a determinate
or defined nothingness because it is the result of a specific process. There is
something particular about the determination in the moment of understanding—a
specific weakness, or some specific aspect that was ignored in its
one-sidedness or restrictedness—that leads it to fall apart in the dialectical
moment. The speculative moment has a definition, determination or content
because it grows out of and unifies the particular character of those earlier
determinations, or is “a unity of distinct determinations”. The speculative
moment is thus “truly not empty, abstract nothing, but the negation of certain
determinations”. When the result “is taken as the result of that from which it
emerges”, Hegel says, then it is “in fact, the true result; in that case it is
itself a determinate nothingness, one which has a content”. As he also puts it,
“the result is conceived as it is in truth, namely, as a determinate negation [
bestimmte Negation] ; a new form has thereby immediately arisen”. Or, as he
says, “[b] ecause the result, the negation, is a determinate negation
[bestimmte Negation] , it has a content”. Hegel’s claim in both the
Phenomenology and the Science of Logic that his philosophy relies on a process
of “determinate negation [bestimmte Negation] ” has sometimes led scholars to
describe his dialectics as a method or doctrine of “determinate negation” (see
entry on [3] Hegel, section on Science of Logic; cf. Rosen 1982: 30; Stewart
1996, 2000: 41–3; Winfield 1990: 56).
–=–
It’s very important to understand that the biology of every false dialectic
turns nothing into something, turns empty form into impossible substance, all
due to the denial of the original or host form and its substance. When the
parasite infects the host, something new is created, though nothing new is
actually visible. The combination of host and parasite causes a perception of
independent and subversive existence (the host acting against its own
interest), just as any combination of men with plans is said to cause
conspiracy (a plan between two or more people). The conspiracy is perceptional
and relative to the combination. Without the combination, there is no
conspiracy. Without the host, no virus can fulfil its purpose (plans). Without
the original, the false dialectic has no reason to exist (it cannot be viral).
To be clear, there can be no negation of anything without there first being a
positive thing to deny. Thus any denial of anything must preserve and
negatively protect the positive (e.g., criticism) to promote the negation. This
can be seen throughout our modern, so-called cancel culture. Cancelation is
impossible without there first being a promotion (positive determination) to
negate (cancel). Truth, in other words, must be preserved, highly controlled,
and systematically criticized in order to promote a lie in its place. Without
the truth, there is no lie.
What happens then, when, only after a state of unsubstantiated denial is mixed
with a helping of cognitive dissonance, the false dialectic is established
(that is, a dissonant and confusing preservation and equal perversion in the
mind of the existence of that which is at the same time already denied — two
seemingly correct determinations that stand opposed to each other considered to
be equally true in the same spectrum)? The answer: that original truth, which
is necessarily denied is in the mind determinately negated through fallacious
logic, turning into the purest rarified product of denial, which is nihilism
(belief in nothingness). Can nothing have substance? Can that which is not
believed in also take up space in reality? Thanks to the false dialectic,
that’s exactly what seems to happen in the mind of the dialectically
(parasitically) infected. Nothing becomes something instead of nothing.
–=–
–=–
As the best and most powerful example of the false dialectic, we must examine
just how this strange concept of having a belief in the non-existence of
anything (nihilism) is the key to maintaining every false dialectic. Examples
of this type of false dialectic can be seen all over the sphere of our
post-modernist, logic-based society, the greatest of negatively positive
determinations (nihilistic rationales) being the non-existence of “God.”
But before this type of false dialectic can be established in the logic-center
of the brain, the actual meaning of the word “God” must be targeted as a
subject of denial. In other words, the non-belief in “God” requires the
preservation of the truth that lies behind the concept of “God”, and so the
entire argument against existence lies within the very possibility of
existence. There is no purpose behind non-belief except as a direct opposition
to that which is believed in the first place. Thus, as I covered in my last
book, the actual NAME of God, translated as YHVH, was all but removed from
modern “versions” of the Bible. The word itself, of course, predates the Bible.
In other words, it was not the Bible that created “God” or Its meaning, but
rather the Bible used the already well-established and defined term YHVH
(properly pronounced Jehovah) as the NAME of the specific conception of what
the actual Supreme Being of “God” is. Of the over 6,000 instances of the term
YHVH used in older foreign language Bibles, only a handful of references to
that NAME remain. In it’s stead was placed words like God, Lord, Master, and
other non-descript, non-defined terms of the English arts. Therefore, the
intended, fixed, and unchanging meaning of the word YHVH, after being replaced
by such undefined terms as God and Lord, can in modern times be ignorantly
disputed or denied.
The meaningless term God (e.g. Ba’al) was used to replace the very deliberate
and meaningful term YHVH, causing and instant confusion of this terminology
used throughout the Bible. The intent and meaning of the word (NAME) is
completely lost to these replacement terms, being mere flattering titles rather
than a specific, well-defined and understood, self-evidently True NAME. In
other words, like the name “Germ,” the name YHVH as originally intended and
defined was never intended to be debated, never intended to be denied, for to
deny YHVH is to deny Existence Itself, to deny self-Existent, self-Evident
Truth, to deny all Life, and to deny all of Nature and Its Law (LOGOS). This is
to say that to deny YHVH is to deny the Existence of Existence (GOD), which is
the very highest form of nihilism, the greatest religious false dialectic ever
known to man. And it was as easy as wiping from memory the meaning of a single
noun (name).
It’s quite clever, really. By inventing a strawman or false dialectical image
of “god” to replace the specific NAME, a generic and specifically non-defined
title that is undefined and generally anthropomorphized into some form of man
or other personification within the halls of corporate religion, the entirety
of the many denominations of so-called “Christian” religions as well as all men
that do not adhere to such a legal corporate religious structure (so-called
atheists and agnostics), or in other words the entire population of Earth have
been sold a “God” that has no Name, no reason, and no definition. It’s a
do-it-yourself God, where you choose what the word God means to you. And so the
concept of belief and non-belief (a false dialectic) were introduced to a
concept that was never intended to be questioned or denied. Those who do not go
to “church” and who say they do not believe in “God” are fallaciously basing
their opinion, their theory of “God” on this man-made– or rather, church-made
rebranding and redefining of what was once a self-evident understanding of the
Supreme Being. The word Being is a verb, an action, representing Life and
Existence Itself, yet the modern delusion of the undefined, legal-corporate
religion-based “God” that so many deny has been dialectically inverted into a
noun, not the action of Being but a personification thereof. “God” was turned
into an empty word with no Life, something outside or superior to Nature, to
Existence, like some overseer watching his chemistry set from beyond. Yet
nothing in the Bible supports this false dialectic. And in fact, as YHVH is
mentioned only a few times in the modern English (dog-Latin) Bible, the NAME
and Its meaning and intention is preserved in a way that allows it to be used
as a host presiding over Its own dialectical denial, without which there would
be no need for the word God.
It’s amazing to consider this dialectic, for the word God is actually used to
“cancel” YHVH and Its meaning from the consciousness of man, completely
altering the Bible and its message, and causing without exception an
institutionalized mistranslation of the entire Bible thereof. It has caused man
to deny his own reason for existence, the ultimate of nihilistic false
dialecticals.
As for the term YHVH, as that which is and always has had a stable, unchanging
definition as that which is Fixed, Permanent, unchanging, Self-Evident, and
Self-Existent, as Existence Itself, was purposefully confounded and confused so
that this meaning was lost. And this created a sense of grandiose cognitive
dissonance, a denial of that which is self-evidently Existent. Here we find the
second part of Hegel’s dialectic fulfilled, in that,
“…the “dialectical” or “negatively rational” moment—is the moment of
instability. In this moment, a one-sidedness or restrictedness in the
determination from the moment of understanding comes to the fore, and the
determination that was fixed in the first moment passes into its opposite.
Hegel describes this process as a process of “self-sublation”. The English verb
“to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb aufheben,
which is a crucial concept in his dialectical method. Hegel says that aufheben
has a doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at
the same time.”
A loose translation might be to fool oneself by applying negative logic built
on ignorance, or rather denial of the positive.
First the false dialectic of the empty word “God” is created, a strawman
argument and false persona invented to specifically be attacked instead of the
already well-known, unquestioned, and indeed quite fixed meaning of YHVH. Thus
a new dialectical based on false information is established, being in and of
itself quite negatively rational, for the actual Truth (YHVH) is not attacked,
only the false replacement, the strawman generically called “God.” But when the
population effected by the fallacy does not know the difference between the
NAME YHVH and the generic term God, then what was fixed for so long suddenly
“passes into its opposite.” The second moment needed for the false dialectic to
be established and believed without proof is thus come to fruition.
Now all that is needed is the final moment, the final step leading to a
faith-based false belief that both negates and preserves at the same time the
Truth (origin), creating a state of institutionalized cognitive dissonance that
feels to the believer to be a constant battle to maintain and defend, to the
point where everyone else appears to the believer of the false dialectic to be
in denial of what they themselves are actually in denial of. This sense of
persecution is, more than anything, the driver behind the desire to defend and
preserve the false dialectic. The church calls this as its right to propaganda
mixed with the right of dispensation, or in other words, the act of peaceful or
violent, voluntary or forced-evangelism.
At this point, the contradictions of the Bible toward these beliefs are
completely and irrationally ignored, causing a constant and often degrading
cognitive dissonance that includes the negation (denial) of certain false
assumptions or determinations (incorrect opinions). Again, the strawman
argument is considered defeated, so that the false dialectic may appear
victorious and proven in the mind.
“God” does not exist. This is a true statement, but only when applied to the
manmade images, symbols, and personifications invented around the false
paradigm of the unknown term “God” invented to cause confusion and cognitive
dissonance. And so, though it may sound like blasphemy to those infected by the
parasitic false dialectic, the empty term God is a parasite that exists only to
obfuscate the Truth of what “God” is actually supposed to be understood as,
that is, as YHVH in its original intention.
The correct terminology for understanding is simply that: YHVH is Existence.
Or, as the Bible instructs, YHVH is TRUTH. Thus, to deny YHVH is to deny
Existence, to deny Truth. No wonder there is so much (purposeful) confusion
within the false dialectic of Biblical religions. For this corporate
Christianity necessarily must preserve the True God (YHVH) in order to, at the
same time, present its own false dialectical of its own non-descript
replacement (vicar) with no name or meaning but the flattering title of “God”.
And so, in a feat of pure evil genius, both religious and non-religious men
have been tricked into worshiping nihilism as their God, be it through false
imagery (idolatry) or through the artificially induced dialectical of denialism
known as nihilism.
–=–
–=–
Now, if we were to apply this three-step paradigm of illogical assumption that
is the false dialectic to almost everything we do in legal society, we would
find ourselves so bound up in this web of lies expounded upon by Hagel that one
might say we live in a complete matrix (simulation) built solely upon these
false dialectics. Be it religion, politics, history, legalism, money,
education, or any other fictional institution of the arts we treat falsely and
worship and practice as the Truth (God), we find a well-organized system of
nihilistic processes. For any false dialectic to work the Truth must always be
both sacrificed and at the same time fallaciously preserved for the dialectic
to inflict the cognitive dissonance and parasitic denialism it needs to exist.
That which is not self-existent (dependent on man’s opinion) is not that which
is of YHVH (self-Evident, self-Existence). The false dialectic always exists
dependent (parasitic) on some other dialectic, thus can never be Truth (YHVH)
in and of its self.
The moral of this example story is simply this, to believe in YHVH is to not
believe in, or more to the point to never put power or respect in anything
manmade. YHVH is Truth, and only the Truth (YHVH) will set you free. Two songs
come to mind…
Imagine being saved by zero beliefs…
Imagine no false dialectics…
Imagine only Truth.
Now, let us apply this understanding of the false dialectic model, putting on
our long unused hats of neutrality, unloading our prejudices, and clearing our
minds so as to uncover just what is this false dialectic being streamlined by
the pretender Doctor named Andrew Kaufman.
–=–
–=–
Greetings fellow Truth-seekers. And by this, to be clear, I mean those who seek
the Truth at any and every cost, even at the expense and pretended comfort of
one’s own ego, imagined reputation, commercial gain, and even when it requires
standing up against the prevalent “cancel-culture” that thrashes truth-tellers
into silence or outright obscurity. If that’s not you, or if you still believe
the meme that there can possibly be two “alternative” sides of the singularly
perfect Truth, then this article and indeed this blog is certainly not for you.
For the Truth has no versions, no sides, and no alternatives. The Truth needs
no dialectic or belief from men to exist, that is, TO BE EXISTENCE (YHVH)
ISTSELF. Most importantly, for those caught up in the matrix of lies and
disinformation presently choking the life out of every legitimate media source
out there, we must always remember that only the Truth will set you free, and
the Truth Exists whether you like it or agree with it or not. You’ve been
served…
Unfortunately, this term “truth” has been coopted by various devils and daemons
masquerading as one of us. And, without contemplating our own dispositions, by
so virally infecting our minds with such unverifiable, faith-based untruths,
many of us have unwittingly become one of them, parroting with a sense of
desperate, desolate sincerity and unintended treachery what we want to believe
is the Truth. We therefore become the very daemons (guides/dividers) of these
false, predatory prophets. And yes, many have turned from reason to a purely
logical critique, ignoring the proper methods of scientific research and debate
toward this cancelation policy when we don’t like what we hear as an educated
response – especially when a lack of self-responsibility or just willing
ignorance is the real problem. It only takes one tool used by one unwitting
fool to inoculate disinformation into so many others with ones own brand of
repeated, unvetted, fallacious rhetoric — or, for that matter, one
psychologically reprograming agent provocateur’ to do the same. I take no
pleasure in stating these Truths about our collective, willful parroting and
movement of disinformation as “news.” But it must be stated, at the risk of
this cancelation policy we pretend to be offended by while in the same breath
using it indiscriminately ourselves, that the infection of mass delusion and
willful ignorance amongst the most Truth-seeking among us has been relabeled
and commodified as the often ambiguously nonsensical and wholly ineffectual
“alternative news.”
Today, I must put back on the hat that has gotten me chastised, banned,
generally dismissed, and sometimes socially cancelled from the so-called
“truth” movement (an assorted web of well-laid, interconnected logical
fallacies and false dialectics), in order to once again smash the lies that are
causing exactly what the Bible warns us against — that we shall be both saved
by and destroyed by knowledge, or the willful lack thereof. Unfortunately, on
one side, the term knowledge is translated into false information, as lies and
false dialectics being worshiped as perceived, faith-based truths, or what the
Bible refers to as our own, self-destructively ignorant force — an abandonment
of scientific methodologies mixed with a turning away from even self-evident
Truths (YHVH). Yet the Truth, that is, knowledge of and therefore practice only
of what is Truth is the only practice that will save us. Faith in the Truth,
that the Truth must and will overcome, is the foundation of spirituality — not
to be confused with modern spiritualists or other “New Age” type logics and
mysticisms. Such information and symbols of the real should not be confused
with True knowledge, any more than technology (art) should in any way be
confused with True Science as conducted using the “scientific method.”
Technology (artifice) is opposed to science, for art is never Truth and proper
science seeks only the Truth. Modern so-called “science” is but a flattering
title, a brand name used to hide the Truth – that modern science is really just
modern art (technology), a new age religion called Scientism.
For those that don’t understand the difference between Natural science (the
study of Nature) and this cult of scientism that seeks to re-evolve and
reorganize Nature to its own image, please watch my documentary on the subject,
here:
See 02:43:00 for section on “scientism”
–=–
The art of lying should never be given a place amongst us, on any platform or
“news” outlet, nor should any flattering title be respected as proof of lies
labeled as the truth. For that reason, today I put my own primary research up
against one of the most prolific liars and provocateurs I’ve seen, Dr. Andrew
Kaufman. This research tome is designed to lift people out of what is becoming
a cult of personality, a new form of cancel-culture, as that which shuns and
pretends discredit to anyone that “believes” in what are called as viruses. As
ridiculous as this notion really is, I simply cannot stand the thought of so
many people being led astray while in the middle of the viral biological
weapons attack that this genetically modified, gain of function induced
“coronavirus” is. This wolf in doctor’s clothing must be stopped. But only you
can stop him, for his existence requires belief in him and the lies he tells.
Are you still able to recover from your own false beliefs? Are you able to
still view in neutrality the following research that absolutely, 100% disproves
this unfounded notion that viruses don’t exist?
To be clear, I have the utmost respect of anyone that in turn respectably
points out to me an untruth that has mistakenly worked its way in to my own
psyche, and therefore becomes embedded into my works, my writings, my movies,
my rhetoric, etc. For we are all horrifyingly susceptible to the art of the
lie, of succumbing to the liar, and ultimately of becoming party to the lie,
from religion and scientism to even the most innocent and sincere of the
fallacious concepts (logics) of men (the low-hanging fruit of the tree of
knowledge). Therefore, I respectably must attempt to correct the current lies
being put forward to the “alternative” masses about viruses and germ theory. If
you seek the Truth, this is dedicated to you. If you have faith-based beliefs
in the designs of men or that you should be listening to those that claim to
present “both sides and let you decide,” the very mantra of Fox News, then you
really need to consider the side where Truth lives. Truth has only one home,
one side.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman, to name but one instigator and provocateur’ among several,
has been making rounds on the alternative, so-called “truth” airways spreading
a cornucopia of disinformation, suggesting his admitted, purely personal BELIEF
without any methodology of science backing it up, that “viruses don’t exist”
and that “exosomes are viruses.” Like the typical self-help guru, his
completely unverified theory implies that all so-called infectious or virulent
disease (i.e. viruses) actually develop from inside the body, and not exterior
from it. Not surprisingly though, for a not so modest chunk of change, the
discredited and ostracized so-called “Dr.” Kaufman will provide products and
services that are conveniently available for heavily re-tailed purchase to ease
you of this body-burden, not forgetting a consultation fee from hell. This
nonsense tactic of covert advertising is amazingly being used as the foundation
of a whole meme-based movement, yet another alternative matrix web to get
caught up in, parroted openly and without proofs even while the viral SARS-Cov2
agent and its syndrome (Covid-19) is being virally spread all over the world.
This is not irony, for as my documentaries show, this genetically modified
coronavirus is doing exactly what it was redesigned and given gain-of-function
(man-made mutation) orthologues to do.
This belief in the non-existence of “viruses” is becoming so prevalent that
it’s interfering with even basic conversational exchanges on the subject. In
other words, one cannot talk of a “virus” without being accused of some sort of
strange heresy, as if belief in what is viral, foul, contagious matter external
from the human body is somehow sacrilege to the New Age religion of Zetetic,
Scientistic (unscientific) thought. And so, I am helplessly watching as many
friends and colleagues fall deeply into these lies, picking up the torch of
scientism and practically crucifying anyone that attempts to speak with actual
scientific research behind his rhetoric, no matter how self-evident or
well-understood that knowledge is. Information (art) is the new, false religion
of science; the consensus-building social influencer is today the new
“scientist.” And it is spreading at a pace that can only be called as Biblical.
So rampant has this meme become that many approach the subject like
fundamentalist religionists, believing they have uncovered the secrets of the
cabal, of the universe, and of the human body, and therefore presenting the
information as a spiritual awakening instead of as what it actually is — a
scientific inquiry with the goal of finding evidential and experiential Truth.
A proper, scientifically bound theory is neutrally proposed with the sole
purpose of being tested, vetted, scrutinized at all angles, and finally
verified, repeated, or disproven. The scientifically-bound theory has no
beginning and no end, for the purpose of the theory is in fact to be improved
upon or eventually disproved. There is no final theory, only the best
observable facts. However, in Zetetic, Scientistic, faith-based or
consensus-based belief systems, the role of the theory is reversed; inverted to
the point that the theory stands immediately as Truth upon its conception and
therefore transfigured into an idol. Through this inversion, the
non-scientifically-bound theory stands firm in the mind and is not subject to
data that might disprove or alter that theory. This is no different than any
other religious belief. Instead of a guidepost pointing toward and encouraging
further research, the theory becomes an impassable barrier to further study or
open dialog. A scientifically-bound theory invites failure and disproof. A
Scientistic, consensus-based theory is used as a blunt weapon to beat down all
dissenting data, discussion, and proofs against it. When theory becomes law in
the mind of unwittingly ignorant believers, then it can no longer be justified
to be called as a theory, and certainly has no place in the scientific
methodology.
Meanwhile, indeed, my people are being destroyed on many fronts by technical
information (terms of art), a matrix of synthetic biological code virally
sweeping through the dualistically ignorant and unbelieving population. In
short, we are being told we should not believe in the virus that is currently
infecting us and our friends and family. What better way to destroy a people
than to cause them to be blind to the very synthetically re-engineered
biological weapon introduced to control, subdue, make helplessly afraid and
ill, and ultimately sterilize, maim, or kill them?
By this logic, if I simply don’t believe in a gun or a Taser, then they can
never hurt me, right?
–=–
–=–
It’s very important to understand the power of words and how they influence our
grasp of reality. Part of the problem is that belief in any word in and of
itself causes reality to dissipate behind the perception of the meaning and
true application of the word. In other words, a talented trickster can make
someone deny reality by redefining or outright denying the word that represents
it. If one can be made to dismiss the representation, the symbol, the word or
the science behind the word, then one can be made to dismiss the truth
altogether. By denying the power, intent, and purpose behind the word used to
describe something real, it is the real that is made to appear unreal by the
perception of the beholder. Just as beauty lies in the eye (spirit) of the
beholder, so too is the truth susceptible to the power of the mind, of false
information. In a very strange happenstance, the beholder develops a divergent
sort of prejudice against the word, and often a dystopian view of whatever
intention or truth lies behind that term of art.
So let’s start by examining the two key words that re-present that backbone of
this false debate. Those words are germ and virus. To do so, we must be
extremely careful not to apply our own perceived, prejudicial meaning that
suits our own egotistical belief system. Instead, we must call on the power of
neutrality, learning what was in the first place intended for us to understand
by the use of that word. For this, we must venture back in time, to the origin
of the word we seek to understand. At the same time, we must remain in a state
of neutrality, a mode of learning without prejudice or pretended foreknowledge,
releasing ourselves from the currently circulating mob mentality and
disinformation campaigns that lead us astray in the first place. It is often
the case that before we may learn the Truth, we must unlearn everything else.
We must view the subject from a fresh, unbiased perspective, humbling ourselves
and restraining our social and political lusts. We must become as children,
learning without preconception.
Before we start, let us first acknowledge that these terms virus and germ are
intended to be specific (special) terms used only in the art of science and
medicine, and therefore carry a meaning that is not general, not the same as
its common definition. Every art has its own terms, and this must be understood
before moving on.
TERM OF ART –A [4] special word or phrase used in [5] relation to a [6] particular
[7] subject or [8] activity (Cambridge Dictionary)
These terms of art, virus and germ, therefore, must be relearned in order to
both know and not misdiagnose their meanings in our common parlance. If you are
going to use medical and scientific terminology in your discourse, then you
must understand what that terminology means in that separate, private realm of
the language arts.
There are three main tenets to Dr. Kaufman’s false claim:
1. viruses don’t exist.
2. exosomes are self-created viruses.
3. germ theory is false while terrain theory is true.
These three arguments are presented separately, meaning they are not
co-dependent on each other. This is to say that disproving one theory does not
disprove the others. Together, they form an extremely unvetted and yet loosely
relative theory by Dr. Andrew Kaufman. In order to show why this theory is
provably false, we must first examine each of these terms of art (words) and
their usage by Kaufman and those that parrot his extremely fallible fable.
The most logical place to start here is in the etymological history of this
word virus, discovering where it originated and what it was intended to mean in
the various language arts of old. If you should suddenly find yourself feeling
like this detailed inquiry into the Truth is becoming threatening to your
current belief system, you should. But this is not a bad thing. You are only a
beneficiary of scientific enquiry and Truth if you choose to be.
[9] Virus (n.) – late 14c., “poisonous substance,” from Latin virus “poison, sap
of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice,” from Proto-Italic =>weis-o-(s-) “
poison,” which is probably from a PIE root =>ueis-, perhaps originally meaning
“to melt away, to flow,” used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with
specialization in some languages to “poisonous fluid” (source also of Sanskrit
visam “venom, poison,” visah “poisonous;” Avestan vish- “poison;” Latin viscum
“sticky substance, birdlime;” Greek ios “poison,” ixos “mistletoe, birdlime;”
Old Church Slavonic višnja “cherry;” Old Irish fi “poison;” Welsh gwy “poison
“). The meaning “agent that causes infectious disease” is recorded by 1728 (in
reference to venereal disease); the modern scientific use dates to the 1880s.
The computer sense is from 1972. (etymonline.org)
[10] viral (adj.) – “of the nature of, or caused by, a virus,” 1944, see virus
+ -al (1). Sense of “become suddenly widely popular through internet sharing”
is attested by 1999, originally in reference to marketing and based on the
similarity of the effect to the spread of a computer virus. Related: Virally.
(etymonline.org)
Well, that certainly changes things, now doesn’t it?
The word virus comes from the etymological meaning of poison or foul contagious
matter.
So what does this first big step do to your belief that “viruses don’t exist”
or that we create viruses only in our bodies? If you are being neutral and
seeking knowledge, then this must mean you don’t believe in poison. You don’t
believe in venomous frogs or snakes. And that snake bit you had as a kid wasn’t
therefor the cause of the severe infection you got immediately after the bite?
And so, for this belief to be stated accurately when referring to any and every
published definition of the word virus, you must therefore believe that poison
(virus) or venom (virus) cannot harm you, because poison (virus) doesn’t
actually exist. My, isn’t that a conundrum?
Now before you start attacking the messenger instead of the message, let’s
examine further our common, dumbed-down, dog-Latin (English) language. In the
older languages from which our current, literalized slave-language English was
copied, butchered, and derived from , the words they spoke were not just empty
vessels of literalness, not just insubstantial nouns (names), but instead
carried with them the notion of some familiar anomaly of action, description,
or attribute. In the case of this word virus, it was only ever meant to be
understood and used as that which is “poisonous.”
But now we need to define poison, and so on, and so forth.
I can personally assure you that the bushy irritant called “Poison Ivy” exists,
and that its title is appropriate to express the viral nature of its rash and
itch-causing oil. After all, I was once victim to such an interaction if it
upon my man-flesh. Ouch! But let us consider why this plant is called as a
poison (virus – meaning viral). The answer, again, is because it contains on
its greenery a viscous, foul, contagious matter (oil) that is poisonous (viral)
to human skin. If all I had to do was say I don’t believe in Poison Ivy or its
viral matter and all that bubbling rash and itchiness would go away, that would
certainly be a medical breakthrough. But whether or not I believe in virus
(poison), virus certainly believes in me.
Let me give you another example. How about sexually transmitted diseases? They
are certainly viral, as statistics show, meaning they spread and corrupt
indiscriminately upon certain sexually simulated contact, right? But the prison
psychiatrist Kaufman claims virus grows in the body. So, does that mean Dr.
Kaufman has every sexually transmitted disease known to man in his manly man
parts just waiting to grow randomly and cause symptoms? Is that in his dating
website profile? And isn’t it odd that his symptoms only actually happen when
he gets desperate and hires a prostitute, paying extra for no condemns (just as
a fictional example, of course)? That’s about as legitimate and believable as
when I was told by my short-lived ex-girlfriend that my particular viral,
sexually transmitted infection probably came from a toilet seat! Then I asked,
what about these little crabs? Again, I’m sorry to say, I certainly experienced
this particular virus in my younger, more care free days, and it felt like a
glass rod was broken inside my thingy while a hundred miniature Hobbits were
digging for root vegetables in preparation for second dinner around my
collective pubic hairs.
Hey, if we can’t be honest and speak of our past mistakes and misplaced trusts,
what will we ever accomplish in real life?
But as the influencer– err, oh; I mean psychiatry “doctor” has suggested,
perhaps you don’t believe in viruses, and therefore don’t believe in sexually
transmitted diseases? If only I knew this back then, I could have simply
twinkled my nose, snapped my fingers, and just non-believed like some magical
spell and presto, no viral disease! And it wouldn’t have felt like my
dickie-doo was transported temporarily to a burning hell full of broken glass
when I took a pee-pee. But alas, my belief in the existence of Gonorrhea being
an actual viral infection kept me in unnecessary pain, and so experientially I
can say to you that yes, it painfully exists.
Unfortunately, I can also assure you that crabs are very much a viral parasite
too: “... [11] An obligate ectoparasite [12] with a ROUND BODY and large claws.
[13] The terminal part of each leg has CLAW-LIKE APPENDAGES whose grasp is
designed to match the diameter of pubic or axillary hair. [14] They can tell
when they have hit a blood vessel when beginning to feed by SENSING CHEMICALS
RELEASED at the site of the wound.” (–[15] Crab louse (nih.gov))
Remember that term, obligate parasite. We’ll come back to it shortly.
Now, the astute reader will surely be saying or thinking right now: that Clint
is an idiot – he’s saying the clap is a viral infection, and he seems to not
know that Gonorrhea is a bacteria not a virus. Crabs certainly aren’t viruses,
man…
Silly rabbit…
The logical thought process you should have is not I’m right he’s wrong, but
rather, I’m curious what his definition of the word “virus” is compared to my
own, and I wonder what his perception of what a virus actually is in reality
could be as compared to my own perceptions? Maybe we should confer and make
sure we are speaking the same language.
You know, the secret to True Peace and Love is in that last sentence, my
friends.
Oh, what a world it would be…
Metaphorically, “Dr.” Kaufman’s line of bullshit, his carefully scripted set of
hand-selected words, is just as viral as any sexually transmitted disease,
bacterial or otherwise. It infects and poisons the mind, alters the normalized
programing, and causes unhealthy symptoms of mainstreameitis and its opposite,
conspiratardness. His lies are poisonous. Get the idea? Bacteria are
pathogenic, which means infectious. They spread virally (infectiously) the more
contact we have with each other.
But here’s another conundrum… How can you believe in bacterium if you don’t
believe in viruses? Are you aware that germ theory includes both bacterium and
viruses, calling both as germs? So if you don’t believe in germ theory, how can
you believe in bacteria, and even more interestingly, how can you believe in
Koch’s postulates for detection of the germ called as bacteria?
Oh dear, that’s a tough one.
Is bacteria an infection? Is bacteria therefore infectious? Bacteria aren’t
viruses, but are bacteria viral in their spread? Bacteria isn’t a viral
infection, but it spreads virally, just as false information does. The problem
is not what actually happens in Nature (Reality), the problem is that the words
used to describe what happens in Reality have multiple different meanings,
intents, and representations. Every word is at least a double-edged sword.
Is bacteria considered a poison? Of course. And this brings up another ailment
I’ve had experience with, that of food poisoning. Bacteria and viruses are
well-known agents in the cause of food poisoning. But if you don’t believe in
viruses, and thus don’t believe in poison, then you don’t really need a stomach
pumping, right? And if you don’t believe in germs, and bacteria is a germ, then
you don’t believe in food poisoning. Man, this is getting weird. You didn’t
actually need anti-biotics for bad bacteria, because you don’t believe in
infectious matter spread by bacteria that would make you sick in the first
place, right? And when a doctor tells you that no, you can’t cure a virus
infection with antibiotics because they only work on bacteria, you must
disagree with the doctor because germs, including bacteria, don’t exist, right?
I suppose you had no zits either, because you don’t believe in pus (virus).
You see how ridiculous and futile this exercise is becoming? And yes, it’s
meant to be really annoying to you. It worked!
I got bitten by a Black Widow spider years ago and ended up in the hospital on
an I.V. and some anti-viral medicine. If venom is virus, then this course of
action makes a whole lot of sense. It saved my life, bringi my temperature down
from 104 within just a couple hours. It was one of the few times I actually had
a good experience and outcome in a hospital setting!
Black widow venom treatment – In the most severe cases, your doctor may inject
you with antivenin. It’s a drug made from substances in the blood of horses.
Antivenin neutralizes the black widow’s venom (virus). That means it prevents
it from causing you harm.
In case you are wondering, the definition of Venin is – any of several
poisonous substances occurring in snake venom. So snake bites are a form of
virus (poison)? Absolutely. Duh! But you don’t believe in viruses, right?
Let’s fast forward from these etymological sources to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
of the English Language to see what a virus was considered to be in 1828:
VIRUS – noun – [Latin [16] See Virulent.] Foul or contagious matter of an ulcer,
pustule, etc.; poison.
VIRULENT – adjective – [Latin virulentus, from virus, poison, that is, strength
, from the same root as vir, vireo. [17] See Venom.] 1. Extremely active in
doing injury; very poisonous or venomous. No poison is more virulent than that
of some species of serpents. 2. Very bitter in enmity; malignant; as a virulent
invective.
VENOM – noun – [Latin venenum, venor, to hunt, to drive or chase; venio, to
come. [18] See Venus, etc.] 1. Poison; matter fatal or injurious to life. Venom
is generally used to express noxious matter that is applied externally, or
that is discharged from animals, as that of bites and stings of serpents,
scorpions, etc.; and poison, to express substances taken into the stomach. 2.
Spite; malice. – verb transitive – To poison; to infect with venom [Little
Used, but envenom is in use and elegant. Venom may be elegantly used in
poetry.]
VENUS – noun – [Latin ventus, venenum; Eng. venom to poison, to fret or
irritate. These affinities lead to the true origin of these words. The primary
sense of the root is to shoot or rush, as light or wind. From light is derived
the sense of white, fair, venus or it is from opening, parting; and from
rushing, moving, comes wind, and the sense of raging, fury, whence Latin
venenum, poison, that which frets or causes to rage. These words all coincide
with Latin venio, which signifies to rush, to fall, to happen; venor, to hunt,
etc. The Greeks had the same idea of the goddess of love, viz. that her name
signified fairness, whiteness, and hence the fable that she sprung from froth,
whence her Green name.] 1. In mythology, the goddess of beauty and love; that
is, beauty or love deified; just as the Gaelic and Irish Diana, swiftness,
impetuosity, is denominated the goddess of hunting. 2. In astronomy, one of the
inferior planets, whose orbit is between the earth and Mercury; a star of
brilliant splendor. 3. In the old chimistry, a name given to copper.
–=–
Author’s Note: I find it poetically fulfilling to discover the usage of ancient
terms in the romantic (non-literal) languages. Here, like the effect of a
virus, of poison, and of the venomous snake, the feeling of love (i.e. lust)
falls upon us, rushing metaphorically through our veins like an infectious
pathogen, filling us with unplanned passion. Imagine if you were able to speak
with such abandon of rule and prejudice, instead of the rote, dead, slave
language called as dog-Latin “English” that we all try and make sound pretty,
and which most often causes semantic disputes that have nothing to do with
reality. Case in point…
POISON – noun – poiz’n. [Latin pus.] 1. A substance which, when taken into the
stomach, mixed with the blood or applied to the skin or flesh, proves fatal or
deleterious by an action not mechanical; venom. The more active and virulent
poisons destroy life in a short time; others are slow in their operation,
others produce inflammation without proving fatal. In the application of poison
much depends on the quantity. 2. Any thing infectious, malignant, or noxious
to health; as the poison of pestilential diseases. 3. That which taints or
destroys moral purity or health; as the poison of evil example; the poison of
sin. – verb transitive – To infect with any thing fatal to life; as, to poison
an arrow. 1. To attack, injure or kill by poison. He was so discouraged that
he poisoned himself and died. 2 Macc. 2. To taint; to mar; to impair; as,
discontent poisons the happiness of life. Hast thou not With thy false arts
poison’d his people’s loyalty? 3. To corrupt. Our youth are poisoned with false
notions of honor, or with pernicious maxims of government. To suffer the
thoughts to be vitiated, is to poison the fountains of morality.
Poison is ANYTHING viral (virulent). Get over it already.
As science advanced, and before it turned into the current institutional cult
of scientism, we should at this point understand the difference between what is
a bacterial infection and an infection caused by a virus. This is a fairly
simple task, of course:
–=–
“The pandemic has made clear the threat that some viruses pose to people. But
viruses can also infect life-sustaining bacteria and a Johns Hopkins
University-led team has developed a test to determine if bacteria are sick,
similar to the one used to test humans for COVID-19.
“If there was a COVID-like pandemic occurring in important bacterial
populations it would be difficult to tell, because before this study, we lacked
the affordable and accurate tools necessary to study viral infections in
uncultured bacterial populations,” said study corresponding author Sarah
Preheim, a Johns Hopkins assistant professor of environmental health and
engineering.
The findings were published today in Nature Microbiology.
Sick bacteria are stymied in their function as decomposers and as part of the
foundation of the food web in the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways.
Determining viral infections in bacteria traditionally relies on culturing both
bacteria and virus, which misses 99% of bacteria found in the environment
because they cannot be grown in culture, Preheim says, adding that tests of
viral infections in uncultured bacteria are expensive and difficult to apply
widely, not unlike the early stages of COVID-19 testing.
The key to making a test of viral infections for uncultured bacteria faster and
more affordable was to isolate single bacterial cells in a small bubble (i.e.
an emulsion droplet) and fuse the genes of the virus and bacteria together once
inside.
“The fused genes act like name tags for the bacteria and viruses,” said lead
author Eric Sakowski, a former postdoctoral researcher in Preheim’s laboratory
who is now an assistant professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. “By fusing
the genes together, we are able to identify which bacteria are infected, as
well as the variant of the virus that is causing the infection.“
The resulting test provides a novel way to screen for viral infections in a
subset of bacterial populations. The test allows researchers to identify a link
between environmental conditions and infections in Actinobacteria, one of the
most abundant bacterial groups in the Chesapeake Bay and one that plays a
crucial role in decomposing organic matter, making nutrients available to
plants and photosynthetic algae.
Though the researchers developed this tool studying the Chesapeake Bay, they
say their approach could be widely applied across aquatic ecosystems, shedding
light on viral ecology and helping predict — and even prevent — devastating
environmental impacts.
“This testing tool allows us to track viral infections more easily, so we can
monitor these infections to see when they are most likely to have important
environmental consequences,” Preheim said.
Sakowski said the new test could someday also affect how we treat bacterial
infections.
“Viruses show potential for treating infections caused by antibiotic-resistant
bacteria,” he said. “Knowing which viruses most effectively infect bacteria
will be critical to this type of treatment.“
Preheim’s team also included Johns Hopkins doctoral student Keith
Arora-Williams, and Funing Tian, Ahmed A. Zayed, Olivier Zablocki, and Matthew
B. Sullivan, all from the Ohio State University. Support was provided by the
National Science Foundation and the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation.
–=–
I know, I know, you don’t believe in viruses, so this whole study must be part
of the conspiracy to promote the germ theory, despite the fact that there are
literally thousands of similar published, reproducible studies on viruses?
Bastards.
But here we come to understand that even Kaufman’s precious weapon and
uninformed talking point on bacteria, used to promote Koch’s postulates against
the existence of viruses, can actually be virally infected. LOL! That certainly
throws a monkey wrench into that particular theory. Perhaps bacteria also grow
spontaneous viruses inside of them, Mr. Kaufman? By this logic, I can grow
snake venom in my body and poison myself to death. If that’s true, then perhaps
I will someday spontaneously combust before I’m self-poisoned, though neither
sounds like a good death.
The more I look into the origins and oddities of this disinformation campaign
against viruses, the more I am reminded of the cancel-culture phenomenon
playing out in social media today. While I attempt to provide as much evidence
and proofs as possible on the table, the “viruses don’t exist” crowd is quickly
becoming a canceler of the legitimacy of anyone that speaks of viruses,
including the typical trolls and drive-by commenters on many websites.
But let us pause for a moment and go back to the notion that viruses are
parasitic by their nature. Parasite is a loose term, and we need to acknowledge
the following…
“Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that hijack cellular pathways to
complete their life cycle.” (see source below).
PARASITE – noun – [Latin parasita; Gr. by, and corn.] 1. In ancient Greece, a
priest or minister of the gods whose office was to gather of the husbandman the
corn allotted for public sacrifices. The parasites also superintended the
sacrifices. 2. In modern usage, a trencher friend; one that frequents the
tables of the rich and earns his welcome by flattery; a hanger on; a fawning
flatterer. 3. In botany, a plant growing on the stem or branch of another plant
and receiving its nourishment from it, as the mistletoe. (–Webster’s 1828)
INOCULATE – verb transitive – [Latin inoculo; in and occulus, the eye.] 1. To
bud; to insert the bud of a tree or plant in another tree or plant, for the
purpose of growth on the new stock. All sorts of stone fruit, apples, pears,
etc. may be inoculated. We inoculate the stock with a foreign bud. 2. To
communicate a disease to a person by inserting infectious matter in his skin or
flesh; as, to inoculate a person with the matter of small pox or cow pox. When
the latter disease is communicated, it is called vaccination.
INOCULATE – verb intransitive – To propagate by budding; to practice
inoculation. The time to inoculate is when the buds are formed at the
extremities of the same year’s shoot, indicating that the spring growth for
that season is complete.
–=–
We are talking about the inoculation of parasites here. They are also called
viruses (noun/name). As you can see, the word parasite and inoculate are,
relatively speaking, one and the same process. Like poisonous mistletoe is
budded onto its host tree, so too is a virus budded (connected through
receptors) to its host. INOCULATE IS DEFINED AS COMMUNICATING DISEASE, THAT IS,
AS CAUSING HARM! But it also defines a biological, obligate parasite.
But we must also consider the biological process of life, specifically the RNA
and DNA, and that many attributes of the human condition lay in the viral
encoding and informational process. What is passed from mother to son or
daughter, including the sex of a child, is done so through the virome.
–=–
“RNA, abbreviation of ribonucleic acid, [19] complex compound of high [20]
molecular weight that functions in cellular [21] protein synthesis and replaces
[22] DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) as a carrier of [23] genetic codes in some [24]
viruses…
“The [25] miRNAs are of particular importance. They are about 22 nucleotides
long and function in [26] gene regulation in most [27] eukaryotes. They can [28]
inhibit (silence) gene expression by binding to target mRNA and [29] inhibiting
translation, thereby preventing functional proteins from being produced. Many
miRNAs play significant roles in [30] cancer and other diseases. For example,
tumour suppressor and oncogenic (cancer-initiating) miRNAs can regulate unique
target genes, leading to tumorigenesis and [31] tumour progression.
“Also of functional significance are the piRNAs, which are about 26 to 31
nucleotides long and exist in most [32] animals. They regulate the expression
of [33] transposons (jumping genes) by keeping the genes from being transcribed
in the germ cells ([34] sperm and [35] eggs). Most piRNA are complementary to
different transposons and can specifically target those transposons.”
(Source: Encyclopedia Britanica link – [36] RNA | Definition, Structure, Types,
& Functions | Britannica)
–=–
Ah, the germ line… Did you know that your sexual reproduction tools are called
the germ line? Don’t believe in germs? LOL!
“A germ line is the sex cells (eggs and sperm) that are used by sexually
reproducing organisms to pass on genes from generation to generation. Egg and
sperm cells are called germ cells, in contrast to the other cells of the body
that are called somatic cells. Germ line actually refers to the sex cells of an
organism.” (Source–>
http://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/germ-line)
–=–
Just what do you think a germ is? Let’s stop and consider that question…
How do plants reproduce?
Germination: the coming into existence and growth from Angiosperm or Gymnosperm
, the growth of sporelings from spores, such as the spores of fungi, ferns, or
bacteria, and the growth of the pollen tube from the pollen grain of a seed
plant.
But you don’t believe in “germs,” right?
Or is it that you just don’t understand the terminology and intent behind the
word itself? Perhaps it’s that disinformation agents like Andrew Kaufman use
incorrect or incomplete data sets and non-technical (common) definitions to
misguide and confuse you? In other words, you must stop thinking of germs as
mere objects, but instead as objects that have a germinating functionality, or
in other words, objects that virally infect (in a good way) other objects in
order to create life itself. No germline, no humans.
Another way to consider what a germ is would be to ask the question, how do
viruses reproduce? Do they go to singles bars or meet online only to hook up
for a sultry one night stand? No, they germ. It’s not just a name, its a
functionality, a type of action and orientation. You see, germ theory is not as
simple as you thought it was. And in fact, the complex nature of life wholly
depends on viruses, bacteria, and other parts of the biome making their sweet
sweet form of love through the germination process.
GERM – noun – [Latin germen.] In botany, the ovary or seed-bud of a plant, the
rudiment of fruit yet in embryo. It is the base or lower part of the pistil,
which, in the progress of vegetation, swells and becomes the seed-vessel. 1.
Origin; first principle; that from which any thing springs; as the germ of
civil liberty, or of prosperity. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American
Language)
–=–
Still don’t believe in germs? Fortunately for us, our lives don’t depend on
nihilistic false-beliefs.
Sexual intercourse is the passing of “germs,” that is sperm, from the male to
the female. While the pomp and circumstance of human sexual behavior is
certainly different than that of other critters, the purpose behind such
behavior and connection is the same – the passing of the germ line.
And then there’s the importance of real, mother to child breastfeeding. We all
promote it without consideration of why, but do we really know why it is so
important?
Neonatal Virome: Human milk protects against pathogenic viruses:
Author Dr. rer. nat. Markus Brüngel
09.2020
“It is now widely accepted that the bacterial colonisation of an infant’s
intestine after birth is a gradual process and that the intestinal microbiome
forms quite quickly. In an article published recently in the renowned journal
“Nature”, researchers reported that this principle also applies to colonisation
by viruses [1] . The type of feeding also has a significant influence on the
virome: human milk ensures that fewer pathogenic viruses occur in the baby’s
intestine. These findings once again confirm that human milk plays an important
role in the protection against infections in early childhood!”
–=–
To put it simply, since bacteria are so easily infected by viruses, the
mother’s milk helps prevent such viral infection.
All of this research is late to the game, for the following reasons:
–=–
In the study of microorganisms, bacteria frequently steal the limelight. During
an influenza outbreak in late 1800, it was the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae
isolated from sputum that was first presumed to cause disease. During the 1918
influenza pandemic, urgent efforts to isolate this causative bacterium failed
and it was not until the 1930s that a filterable agent, a virus, Influenza
H1N1, was identified as the culprit [1] . Similarly, in the pursuit of
understanding human commensal micro organisms, the last 20 years of research
has focused almost exclusively on bacteria and their regulation of our immune
and nervous systems. In comparison, very little is known about eukaryotic and
prokaryotic viruses that also inhabit asymptomatic humans. Given that the name
virus was coined from the Latin word meaning slimy liquid or poison and that
viruses are considered obligate pathogens, a possibly “beneficial virome ”is
surprising to many. The late start for viruses in the commensal micro-organism
field is in large part due to our inability to readily culture or detect them,
as was the case during the discovery of the influenza virus. We do not yet know
the eukaryotic cell or bacterial host of most viruses, and there is no
universal 16S ribosomal RNA equivalent, as in bacteria, allowing for rapid
taxonomic characterization. Technologies such as metagenomic shave only
recently enabled identification of viruses in healthy human tissues. This
initially involved sequencing all DNA or RNA in a sample (human, bacterial, and
viral), and computationally aligning the massive number of sequences to
identify those that resemble known viral genes. An improvement on this approach
now involves filtering samples to purge eukaryotic cells and bacteria so that
only virus-like particles (VLPs) remain for sequencing. However, since the
virome consists of both temperate bacteriophages within bacterial genomes and
free VLPs, both total and VLP sequencing will likely provide greater
representation of all viruses. Nonetheless, with the approaches taken thus far,
studies have revealed viruses are abundant in human feces, blood, skin, lung,
oral cavity, and an array of other tissues of healthy and diseased individuals.
(Source–> [38] (PDF) Illuminating the human virome in health and disease
(researchgate.net))
–=–
–=–
In consideration of the “viruses are exosomes” concept (non-theory) put out by
Kaufman with absolutely no research or science behind the claim, admittedly
stating that it’s just his sole, unscientifically garnered opinion, most who
hear his fallacious rhetoric mixed with many non-relative truths have a
faith-based belief in his words. And yet, with just a token bit of general
research, one can easily debunk this opinion at every angle. Kaufman is
believed not because he is a scientist, but because those that allow him to
speak and those listening simply do not vet or verify his disinformation. The
easily disprovable lie becomes viral, and another disciple of nonsensical
Kaufmanism is born, not unlike the effect of any other religious or spiritual
guru.
But trust me when I say, if I can do the simple research to find the following,
so can you, and one would think, so could Kaufman. But the following journaled
science would ruin his whole product and consultation marketing scheme, where
he pretends to be a trusted medical doctor instead of a washed out prison
psychiatrist.
So let us take a journey into the science of exosomes and their host endosome,
so as to understand their purpose, construction, and the ease to which they are
infiltrated with viruses.
First, we must know that an exosome is a vesicle excreted from the endoscope of
a cell in ones’ own body, which can be highjacked by viruses (viral, contagious
matter).
VESICLE – [ vĕs ′ĭ-kəl ] A small fluid-filled sac in the body. A membrane-bound
sac in eukaryotic cells that stores or transports the products of metabolism in
the cell and is sometimes the site for the breaking down of metabolic wastes.
–=–
As we’ve seen, the term virus refers to anything infectious, like pus or
poison, as “Foul or contagious matter of an ulcer, postule, etc.; poison.”
(–Webster’s 1828). But we must also remember, virus is merely the noun (name)
form of the adjective VIRULENT. Thus many things, including computer viruses
and even ideas, can be called metaphorically as a virus. They are virulent.
VIRULENT – adjective – [Latin virulentus, from virus, poison, that is,
strength, from the same root as vir, vireo. [39] See Venom.] 1. Extremely active
in doing injury; very poisonous or venomous. No poison is more virulent than
that of some species of serpents. 2. Very bitter in enmity; malignant; as a
virulent invective.
–=–
“Virulence is a pathogen’s or microorganism’s ability to cause damage to a
host. In most contexts, especially in animal systems, virulence refers to the
degree of damage caused by a microbe to its host. The pathogenicity of an
organism—its ability to cause disease—is determined by its virulence factors.
In the specific context of gene for gene systems, often in plants, virulence
refers to a pathogen’s ability to infect a resistant host.” (Wikipedia)
So when we speak of a virus in terms of disease and not in health or benefit,
we speak of that which is virulent. But we should not then confuse the term
“virus” as a general name for that which is virulent (harmful), which means it
can transfer its biological information to take over and cause cells to release
virally infected vesicles (e.g. exosomes) that carry the virus (contagious RNA
code) to other cells, etc. The vesicle (exosome) is no more than a carrier, a
vehicle for the viral material. And most importantly, the vessel (vesicle)
transporting that foreign virus most often does so without “knowing” it has
been infected. This is not unlike a mailman delivering bombs or anthrax-laced
letters to each mailbox without awareness of his actions or the downline
consequences thereof.
This is important because exosomes are in their normal capacity very much
healing agents, which stop inflammation and other symptoms of disease. To call
them inceptively as viruses is at best ill-informed (ignorant) and at worse an
organized psychological operation to confuse and allow these psychopaths
(pseudo-scientists) to continue inventing and spreading viruses to people that
now don’t even believe viruses exist. This lie by this already ill-famed
PSYCHIATRIST (non-scientist) Dr. Kaufman and others cannot be allowed to
continue.
Below is the description and science behind just what an exosome is and how it
functions in normality and after viral infection. All links are active so you
can read for yourself the whole study, and the quotes that follow a link are
copied therefrom to tell the story of exosomes and their roll.
If you’d like to read the psychiatrist’s opinion ( I refuse to call it a theory
anymore), you may do so here:
https://www.weblyf.com/2020/04/dr-andrew-kaufman-and-the-exosomes-coronavirus-truth/
–=–
And so, as with most disinfo agents, we find lies mixed in with mostly truths.
Yes, non-virally infected exosomes are beneficial to health and go around the
body to fight inflammation and deliver beneficial (viral) material. This is not
news, but rather the very definition of an exosome that anyone can find with a
simple internet search. However, the notion that viruses magically appear in
exosomes in some feat of spontaneous generation is ludicrous and without any
scientific fact. But if you consider his consultation and product sales, the
root of this lie it turns out is a well laid plan. Invoking a new age type of
mindset in the listener, he pretty much just tells people what they want to
hear, that all disease can be cured by the body because the body is the cause
of all disease. Therefore, my magical, expensive-as-hell product will cure you
from your own emotional detriment. It’s self-help on steroids.
And it would be great, if it were true, if it weren’t a 100% disprovable lie to
take advantage of a scared, irrational, already sick population.
–=–
“He (Kaufman) is a grifter. He made a website the second the pandemic broke out
and started doing all his interviews with David Icke, and on there he was
charging $1000 for a basic 1 time medical consultation.”
–Anonymous commenter
–=–
Now, here’s the truth about exosomes, which are extremely susceptible to viral
infection.
Again, to read the whole study, click on the links above the quotations below:
“Currently, HCV and hepatitis A virus (HAV) are the only viruses that have been
shown to incorporate their full-length genomic RNA within exosomes [31] .
Another virus that can utilize the endosomal/exosomal system to deliver viral
cargo to uninfected cells is the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1)… Viruses
are obligate intracellular parasites that hijack cellular pathways to complete
their life cycle. In recent years, an accumulating body of data has emerged
suggesting that some viruses can also manipulate with the vesicular trafficking
machinery for their assembly, egress, and transmission…”
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00090/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378677/
“Exosomes are small membrane bound vesicles that carry biological
macromolecules from the site of production to target sites either in the
microenvironment or at distant sites away from the origin. Exosomal content of
cells varies with the cell-type that produces them as well as environmental
factors that alter the normal state of the cell such as viral infection. Human
DNA and RNA viruses alter the composition of host proteins as well as
incorporate their own viral proteins and other cargo into the secreted
exosomes.“
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23441990/
difference-between-stem-cells-and-exosomes-lung-repair-and-virus-interruption-discovery-1-3/
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/563/eaaz3426.full
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/viruses/special_issues/viruses_exosomes
“Certain viruses deliver their genomes into intraluminal vesicles, which then
serve as vehicles to transport the genome along the endocytic pathway to the
nuclear periphery for replication. Moreover, endosomal vesicles can be diverted
to the exocytic pathway and secreted as exosomes. Exosomes containing viral
genomes can promote viral spread by infecting adjacent, or in some cases
distant permissive cells, while evading immune recognition, thanks to the
absence of viral glycoproteins on the exosome membrane. Conversely, exosomes
containing viral proteins or nucleic acids have been found to activate immune
responses in myeloid cells in certain cases. Antigen-loaded dendritic cells can
activate T cells by directly transferring exosomes to an interacting T cell,
although some viruses, like HIV, have evolved to utilize DC to T-cell vesicle
transfer as a route for productive infection.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30416610/
“It has been documented that viral hijacking exploits the exosomal pathway and
mimics cellular protein trafficking. Exosomes released from virus-infected
cells contain a variety of viral and host cellular factors that are able to
modify recipient host cell responses. Recent studies have demonstrated that
exosomes are crucial components in the pathogenesis of virus infection.
Exosomes also allow the host to produce effective immunity against pathogens by
activating antiviral mechanisms and transporting antiviral factors between
adjacent cells.“
https://naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com/posts/
viral-infection-by-exosome-mimicry-the-havcr1-npc1-pathway
“Viral infection by exosome mimicry: the HAVCR1/NPC1 pathway – Exosomes play a
significant role in cell-to-cell communication. Viruses highjack exosomes
hiding in their lumen to avoid immune recognition and enter the cell. However,
how exosomes deliver their cargo into the cytoplasm still remains a black box.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820302537
“Highlights:
• Extracellular vesicles contribute to intercellular communication.
• Virus-infected cells release extracellular vesicles containing viral
components that promote infection.
• Extracellular vesicles may contribute to spread COVID-19 virus as they
transfer such receptors as CD9 and ACE2.
• Upon entry, COVID-19 virus may be directed into the exosomal pathway, and its
component is packaged into exosomes for secretion.
• Extracellular vesicles may serve as a treatment agents for COVID-19 virus.“
–=–
In the simplest of terms, Kaufman’s idea that exosomes are self-created viruses
and therefore viruses don’t exist would be like blaming the vehicle (vesicle)
as the cause of an accident, completely ignoring and excusing the driver
(factor) that caused the vehicle (vesicle) to act abhorrently. The vessel is
not aware of the drive (virus), so blaming the vesicle without acknowledging
its viral infection is ludicrous. Yet this ridiculous notion is key to the
false dialectic Kaufman and others are promoting.
I assume the above research is sufficient to completely discredit this
psychiatrist’s ignorant claims, again showing how a good liar always includes
layers of the truth relative to a false conclusion. And I must admit, he’s a
good liar. For even after I heard an interview the first time, it caused me to
double-check my own understanding. I’m glad I did, and I hope you are happy to
benefit from my verification process as presented here… that is, if you haven’t
already socially cancelled me for my shocking non-belief in the non-existence
of viruses.
Now let’s move on to Kaufman’s supporting notion that, according to “Koch’s
Postulates” published in the year 1890, no virus has been “isolated.”
Here we uncover another, very clever lie through obfuscation of the facts.
Let me just say here that if I ignore the last 130 years of publications and
journaled science, I would be agreeable that indeed, viruses don’t fit the
criterium that was laid out in Koch’s postulates. And let me say as well that
if I ignored the last 130 years of inventions that I would also believe that
airplanes, helicopters, and space rockets were also impossible and
non-existent. So right away, we find that a statement based on a publication in
1890 doesn’t hold much weight in the year 2021 – unless you simply don’t bother
to check for updates over the last century plus 30 years of research and for
that matter, historical documentation. Unfortunately, I’m sorry to say, many in
the alternative so-called truth movement are just gullible enough to fall, over
and over, for these often well-organized, legerdemain disinformation tricks.
Some will say, hey Clint, that’s just rude. And to that I will say, no, that’s
obviously the Truth. And again, only the Truth, even about yourself, will set
you free.
Kaufman is very clever in the way he debates his stance that no virus has been
“isolated.” But let me just say from the start here that his argument is based
on a specific and purposefully instigated logical fallacy. That fallacy takes
root in, you guessed it, the language arts. Words.
Here again I stress the importance of using the correct terms of art for each
art or science one is speaking to. If I speak of legal law, I use the legal
meaning of words. If I speak of botany, I use the Latin terms of that art to
name those flora. If I’m an actual practicing medical doctor, which Kaufman is
not, then I would use the accepted medical terms of art. And most importantly,
if I’m a virologist, I would use the terms of art that are used in that field
of study. Every field has its own terms, and with those terms come their own
officious definitions. Even Psychiatry has its own terms of art. And finally,
there is the common language, which are the word terms we all use on a
constant, conversational level in our dumbed-down society.
So if I wish to cause confusion and deception in my audience, I would certainly
use the common definition of the word isolation instead of the term of art that
best defines that word for the purpose and intent and practice it was being
used to describe. And that’s exactly what Kaufman did. He used the general,
common definition of the word isolation to pretend to prove that no virus has
ever been isolated. But quite simply, the common word and the scientific term
of art do not carry the same exact meaning. Only a con artist would mix terms
to fallaciously discredit scientifically achieved research.
Kaufman’s hand-picked definition in his public presentation comes from
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which states:
Isolate – “especially: to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure
or in a free state.”
Now compare this general meaning to the medical meaning as pertaining to
viruses: “Virus isolation is a very specific method for diagnosis of viral
infection, but culture techniques need a week or more for completion and
require specialized laboratory equipment and skills. Early identification and
sampling of affected horses is critical for virus isolation as horses shed
viruses for only a short period after infection.”
Kaufman’s trick here is to state not the truth, but a fact that is irrelative
to the truth. His extremely disingenuous argument is simply that the
“isolation” done on bacteria and other specimens cannot be done to viruses.
And, of course, this is a true statement. In fact, it is the very reason his
argument is fallacious. For it is certainly well-known in the industries
involved and as defined above that virus “isolation” is absolutely dissimilar
to other forms of isolation, and should not be confused as being the same
method. Virus isolation is a “very specific method,” meaning not the same. And
so here we find Kaufman’s false dialectical broken down to its framework. Viral
isolation is not the same procedure as other isolation technologies. Simple.
Yet Kaufman masterfully uses this non sequitur as if it’s somehow not known.
And indeed, unless you take the time to study the process, it’s very easy to be
fooled by this false dialectic, that no virus has been isolated. The actual,
full, true statement should read: No virus has been isolated according to the
general, non-specific meaning and intent of the word.
In attempting to answer this question of virus isolation, I tried to explain it
as I could this isolation misnomer to a Kaufman worshiper:
–=–
Point by point:
1: The study you link is literally based on a limited sample taken from a man
in Washington State that had contracted SARS-Cov2 in China. So how can you then
say this study shows that SARS-2 is not infectious? There would be no study
without the infection in the first place.
2: Using vero cells for SARS-2 is bad science… Vero cells (green monkey kidney
cells cloned repeatedly from the 1960’s) have lead to many misleading,
scientistic claims, including that hydroxycloroquine and even Prozac helps with
human infection:
“Whereas hydroxychloroquine does not appear to stop SARS-CoV-2 from infecting
Vero cells, it fails to do the same for human lung cells in a dish. According
to research from Stefan Pohlmann, head of the Infection Biology Unit at the
German Primate Center in Gottingen, and his collaborators, the devil was in the
details of how the cells interact with the SARS-CoV-2’s dreaded ‘spike’
protein. Human lung cells contain at least two different enzymes that can help
the virus sneak through their membranes. With Vero cells, however, only one of
those modes of entry is available – and it turns out to be the one that
hydroxychloroquine will block. Pohlmann and his team published the results in
the Journal of Nature on July 22. For him, it’s a clear example of why using
human lung cells is really important in studying this pandemic virus. Vero
cells should be “handled with caution,” Pohlmann says. “It’s true that the Vero
cells are very popular. But unfortunately for this particular aspect of
Covid-19 research, they are absolutely not useful. I think this is now clear to
the field.”
3: The conclusion completely disagrees with your cherry picked, out of context
facts listed here:
“…we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several
common primate AND HUMAN cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells
(A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells
(HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E^ and Vero CCL81 cells. We also examined big
brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each
cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h
(hours) post-infection… NO CPE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE CELL LINES EXCEPT IN
VERO CELLS…”
“…In contrast, HUH7.0 and 293T cells SHOWED ONLY MODEST VIRAL REPLICATION, and
A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection… Together, the results
indicate that SARS-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-1 in terms of
susceptible cell lines… Replication in HUH7.0 cells also increased quickly
after an initial eclipse phase but plateaued by 24 h (hours) post-inoculation
in the intracellular compartment at 2 x 10 TCIS 50/ml and decreased after 66 h
(hours) post-inoculation. Virus was not detected in the supernatant of infected
HUH7 cells until 36 h (hours) post-inoculation and exhibited lower titers at
all timepoints… THESE RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS REPORTS FOR SARS-CoV
and MERS-CoV, which suggested similar replication dynamics between zoonotic CoV
strains…”
You are not looking at the results, you are only looking for select factoids
that can be used to prove your belief, which when put into context, have no
relevance as stand-alone facts. You ignore the whole study and all those like
it just because you found a tiny, out of context fragment to support your
belief. In fact, this very limited study was specifically designed to test only
(not all) specific cell lines that would grow the virus as a cell substrate,
and not one human was re-infected. This does not prove in any way it’s not
infectious to humans, only that it did not grow in these particular, extremely
small and insignificantly incomplete, very commonly used, specifically cloned
cell lines used for research, which are again commonly used as cell substrates
to grow all sorts of viruses.
Do you know how many different cells are in the human body? Do you understand
that this limited selection of cells used within this study is not in any way
uncontrolled, meaning it only covers these specific cell lines and excludes so
many others? Do you understand that no human was used as a lab rat?
…To compare your assessment that this single study proves Covid SARS-2 is not
infectious to humans due to this one research paper alone tested on 3 or 4 out
of many human cell types… that would be like saying all screws are useless and
cannot be used because we only tested all those screws with the extremely
limited-sized nuts we have in stock. Therefore our conclusion is that most
screws have no counterpart nuts, and therefore cannot be used in construction.
There are about 30 trillion cells in the human body, as an estimate, with over
200 types categorized, for instance: blood cells (erythrocytes), fat cells,
nerve cells (neurons), lung cells, skin cells, and so on… The study also states
that,
“HAVING ESTABLISHED ROBUST INFECTION WITH SARS-CoV-2 in several cell types, we
next evaluated the cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV antibodies against the
SARS-CoV-2…”
Did you miss that part, or doesn’t it jive with your belief? The only
conclusion this study shows is what most show, which is that more research is
needed, and that SARS-2 grows just as well on Vero cells as SARS and MERS does.
Nowhere does it conclude what you conclude, that no virus was ever isolated
anywhere. The fact that there was viral infection at all, let alone post
infectious growth, should be your first sign that the virus exists. The point
of the study was certainly not to prove or disprove the virus, nor was this
point that viruses might not exist mentioned in the study in any way.
Another example of cells used is this: “Protein Sciences, whose recombinant DNA
platform is based on insect cells. Their Sfg cell line comes from the fall
armyworm and highly effective as a rapid growth medium. It has been used for
several years in producing influenza vaccines. In 2017, Sanofi Pasteur bought
Protein Sciences and is using this same platform for their newly developing
Covid-19 vaccine which will allow them the flexibility to make millions of
doses of vaccine quickly.”
I can assure you that the purpose of the study you are selectively misquoting
is to find the growth medium of cells particular to COVID, or in other words,
its purpose is to make it grow for vaccine and study purposes, thus they tested
the standard cell lines mentioned. There is nothing more to see here. As for
your fallacious line about wanting to see full sequencing (isolation), you are
barking up a tree that has no say in the matter. If you don’t believe in these
sequences, again, I cannot help you.
The end of the report states the following: “Because research has been
initiated to study and respond to SARS-CoV-2, information about cell lines and
types susceptible to infection is needed. Therefore, we examined the capacity
of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell
lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0),
and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero
CCL81 cells. We also examined an available big brown bat kidney cell line
(EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated at
high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h postinfection (Figure 3, panel
A). No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which
grew to >107 PFU at 24 h postinfection. In contrast, HUH7.0 and 293T cells
showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with
SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility
findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK,
HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support
SARS-CoV-2 replication (–).”
It’s very important to understand that these cell-lines are all manmade,
collected many decades ago, and cloned over and over for research purposes.
They are not natural, and are used only for the purposes of growing pathogens.
None of these cell-lines are in your body unless they are injected
(inoculated).
“In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are
susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2
maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.“
In other words, they are looking for host cell substrates to grow the virus on,
and this was a test of those various cell lines commonly used, not to show
whether or not infection happens in humans. Finally, the discussion states:
“We have deposited information on the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 viral strain
described here into the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research Resources
Repository (website) reagent resources (American Type Culture Collection… and
the WORLD REVERENCE CENTER FOR EMERGING VIRUSES AND ARBOVIRUSES, UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH (website), to serve the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain for
the United States. The SARS-CoV-2 fourth passage virus has been sequenced and
maintains a nucleotide sequence identical to that of the original strain from
the United States. These deposits make this virus strain available to the
domestic and international public health, academic, and pharmaceutical sectors
FOR BASIC RESEARCH!!!”
And now we are back to the point of my Wagging The Dog documentary, which is
biological weapons research masqueraded as basic research, where these
sequences you doubt the existence of are being cataloged and displayed for
anyone to acquire. If you have further questions on these sequences, I suggest
you take it up with the proper institutions listed above instead of trolling me
and others in youtube comment sections. I assure you it has no effect except to
waste my time in response so that the pervasive bullshit spewing from you
doesn’t infect others. Now kindly piss off and move on to your next prey. I
will not allow any more disrespectful comments from you. Respectful, yes.
Douchebaggery, no. Trolling will be deleted.
–=–
–=–
The problem is that now there are who knows how many “fans” of Kaufman’s
nonsense that on a constant bases parrot Kaufman’s lies, stating that the
coronavirus “isolates” aren’t actually “isolated.” The word game is in full
throttle. And so, having no idea what they are talking about, the gullible,
unstudied audience spreads Kaufman’s dis-info, making the insistent and
completely fallacious, impossible claim that the virus hasn’t been isolated,
when in fact the opposite is true. But it’s only true if the correct term of
art is used, that is, the correct scientific term and its intended, limited
meaning.
Firstly, let me direct you to two papers that explain the whole process of
isolation as it pertains to the coronavirus, so that you get the actual
methodology and story from someone that actually works with and isolates these
viruses. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. You might want to choose to
read these articles after finishing mine own, so you know before reading them
what the term isolation actually means in viral research, instead of having a
false belief grafted into your psyche by this psychiatrist that in fact has
never worked a single day in his life with viruses or their isolation:
“I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight the
global pandemic”
Link–> [51] I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight
the global pandemic (theconversation.com)
“Sigh, yes, the ‘COVID virus’ is real”
Link–> [52] Sigh, yes, the ‘COVID virus’ is real – Virology Down Under
Here’s an important excerpt from that second article to get us in the mood to
speak about both isolation and the non-relevancy of Koch’s postulates to
viruses:
———————————————————————————————————-
Koch’s postulates – derived from his work on bacteria – were formally proposed
at a lecture by Koch in 1890.
[53] [Kochs-Postulates-Translation_Evans]
From Causation and Disease: The Henle-Kock Postulates Revisited, by ALfred
Evens. [5] Remember – these were made before anything was really known about
what a virus truly was. They were designed with bacteria in mind, and as a
guide not a dictum.
–=–
For context, that’s before we had ever visualized a human or plant virus,
before organ or cell culture of viruses, before sequencing of viral genes or
genomes and before we had labelled antibodies we could as probing tools to show
viral proteins in tissues. It was known that this toxic stuff (virus, from
Latin, translates to ‘slimy liquid, poison’) was smaller than bacteria because
it passed through filters that stopped them, and yet could still cause disease.
Discovery of human viruses came later still (Yellow fever virus, 1901-1921).
Koch’s postulates were never intended to be rigidly applied, even then. In
fact, trying to strictly adhere to them probably delayed the discovery of
viruses. [11]
[54] [Falkow_1988_Koch]
So let’s move away from the 1890s… this revision by Fredericks and Relman
(from [55] Fenner and White’s Medical Virology (Fifth Edition) is much more
relevant to recent decades.
[56] [Fredericks]
–=–
SARS-CoV-2 replicates in human pancreatic islets
To determine the susceptibility to ex vivo infection, human pancreatic islets
isolated from four human donors were exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and expression of
viral spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) protein, as well as endocrine cell
markers, was analysed. S and N proteins were not detected at day 1 (not shown),
but became readily detectable at days 3 (Fig. [57] 2a) and 5 (Fig. [58] 2b)
post-infection (Extended Data Fig. [59] 5). Pancreatic islets treated with 5 µM
remdesivir, a polymerase inhibitor with potent in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2
activity^[60] 52, did not stain positive for S or N proteins, indicating
suppression of SARS-CoV-2 replication. Quantification of viral N-protein
expression in infected islets confirmed robust infection ranging between 20%
N-positive cells at day 3 and 34% at day 5 per infected islet (Fig. [61] 2c).
(Link–> [62] SARS-CoV-2 infects and replicates in cells of the human endocrine
and exocrine pancreas | Nature Metabolism)
–=–
From several other lectures and info on viral isolation and purification
techniques, I paraphrase:
Isolation of viruses requires a totally different system than isolation of
bacteria. Viruses don’t have any similarity to bacteria or the eukaryotic
system… It’s a totally different approach to cultivate it (virus).
“Eukaryotic: of, relating to, or being an organism (as of the domain Eukarya)
composed of one or more cells containing visibly evident nuclei and organelles
: being or characteristic of a [63] eukaryote. The first known use of this term
was not until 1957, almost 70 years after the original Koch’s postulates were
published. In other words, those postulates don’t necessarily apply to viruses,
which are not of the domain we find bacteria in. Comparatively, Koch’s
postulates, when compared to modern viral research, are like instructions on
how to build a square wheel.“
Cells fall into one of two broad categories: prokaryotic and eukaryotic. The
single-celled organisms of the domains Bacteria and Archaea are classified as
prokaryotes (pro = before; karyon– = nucleus). Animal cells, plant cells,
fungi, and protists are eukaryotes (eu = true).
–=–
This is very important, for the false non-scientific theory of Kaufman is that
viruses are somehow created inside the body, out of thin air. Yet viruses do
not exist as such in the animal or Eukaryote kingdom. This would metaphorically
be like theorizing that a tiger can spontaneously (without viral spread and
infection of the coded information) grow fish scales. This doesn’t happen in
Nature, for each of these lifeforms has its own kingdom, its own domain, and
generally each species has its own viruses that do not spread to other species
(with some exceptions). SARS-Cov1 required an animal intermediary, whereas
SARS-Cov2 is artificially mutated (gain of function) to bypass this requirement
and be infectious by human to human contact. This function was added in the
laboratory, as my documentaries show.
[64] Prokaryotes are further divided into two main kinds of organisms: bacteria
and archaea. Some examples of prokaryotic organisms include the common bacteria
E. coli, the archaea M. Smithii which helps humans break down polysaccharides
in the intestines, and Deinococcus radiodurans, a species of bacteria known for
its extreme radiation resistance… Prokaryotic organisms are so named because
they consist of prokaryotic cells. There are two fundamental kinds of cells,
[65] prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells contain a [66]
membrane-bound nucleus of DNA and several well-defined independent cellular
organelles. Eukaryotic cells are the basic building blocks of all complex
multicellular life, including human beings. (Link–> [67] Prokaryotes Examples To
Learn From | Science Trends)
For clarity, humans are in the kingdom Animalia, which is in the domain Eukarya
. All organisms therein are considered eukaryotic. Viruses are neither
prokaryotic nor eukaryotic. Viruses are in a separate category known as
obligate intracellular parasites. By themselves, viruses do not carry the
biological material necessary to reproduce; they can only replicate themselves
by infecting prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells. (Source–> [68] Is a Virus a
Prokaryote or a Eukaryote? (reference.com))
In other words, there is no total isolation of a virus from its host. The whole
purpose of a virus, as RNA (biological information), is to be inoculated
(infected) into a host so that the full host/virus result comes to fruition.
The host becomes the virus. There is nothing to isolate, except what is the
term of art that describes the isolation process for viruses, which is again
completely different than Koch’s postulates allow for. Kaufman certainly knows
this to be true, but conveniently obfuscates this knowledge to support his lie–
err, theory.
And the parrots repeat over and over the wrong information to each other,
forming a cult-like belief system based on absolutely nothing but the trust in
this completely inexperienced psychiatrist that uses no scientifically-achieved
data sets to verify his opinions.
Most importantly here, we can see that Koch’s postulates are strictly speaking
designed only for application toward Prokaryotic infections in the domain of
Eukaryotic species. Why would anyone suggest therefore that Koch’s postulates
should likewise apply to a viral (parasitic) infection of that which is not of
the Prokaryotic domain? Why indeed… The answer should be becoming painfully
obvious. The postulates were, as we’ve noted, altered in the 1930’s to include
viruses that are not of either the Animalia or Bacteria kingdoms. This alone
creates a huge, cavernous hole in Kaufman’s “theory,” and misaligns most of his
supporting non-primary data. Imagine if I required a banana and all other
species of fruit to meet the requirements of an apple to therefore be part of
the fruit domain? They are a completely different species. There’s no room in
my domain for you, banana. You’re to soft and squishy and you bruise like my
great grandma. We apples are a class all our own! According to Kosher Dill
postulates, you therefore don’t exist! Bananas are obviously the product of and
exosomal release caused by stress on the environment, not real fruit…
But in this case, comparing postulates designed so intentionally for bacterial
infection to what is a completely different viral infection is like comparing
the mechanism of action of a cruise ship to a canoe. Kaufman and his ilk simply
chose to ignore the updates to these 130 year old postulates, ignoring all the
science behind them since, cherry-picking only that which supports the
“alternative” argument, which in the end, appears to be based on nothing at all
but obfuscation of already proven scientific fact. In other words, Kaufman has
created a very well-laid false dialectic designed to “cancel” the scientific
understanding of viruses and germs. And because Kaufman’s unscientific “theory”
is considered as nothing but preposterous in the scientific realm, he chose an
audience that is not of the “science community,” not familiar with scientific
terms, and that is therefore open to a good false conspiracy.
Hint: he’s not presenting research or papers to any journals, as all other
researchers would strive to do. No. Instead, Kaufman came into the alternative
movement at day 1 of the Covid-19 debacle, because we are an audience that
would actually consider his lies as legitimate without proof. And it certainly
wouldn’t be the first time!
From another lecture: “Viruses, as obligate parasites, must be grown in living
cells. This is the biggest challenge of all. All the other organisms (e.g.
bacterium) generally grow by taking up provided nutrients, most often
chemicals. Viruses will also grow taking up nutrients, but if we give them
chemical nutrients they will not grow in and of themselves. Again, viruses are
by their nature obligate parasites. We need to supply them with a host, which
means some form of living cell. So we need to maintain a living cell in the lab
in order to maintain a virus in the lab. The virus is, in other words, BECOMES
PART OF THE HOST…“
“Bacteriophages are placed upon a lawn of bacteria and form plaques (the plate
or dish is prepared, the bacteria is added, and then the bacteriophages are
added, entering into the bacteria and thriving within). Inversely, animal
viruses may be grown in cell cultures, embryonated eggs, or in living animals
(as examples), all of which act as hosts. This is why virus handling becomes
much more critical than the handling of bacteria. In fact, they cannot be
compared. They are completely different systems of research.“
“When searching for viral infection, it’s not the virus as a whole that is
sought out, but certain proteins that otherwise would not be present in the
host that originate from the virus. Thus tests (like Western Blot) are used to
detect and identify specific antibodies, which shows evidence of the parasitic
viral infection. More importantly, specific proteins that are associated only
with the specific capsid or envelope of a virus, when discovered, are what show
proof of the presence of the virus, BECAUSE THOSE PROTEINS ARE NOT OTHERWISE
FOUND IN THE HOST, or in other words, never originate from eukaryotic (e.g.,
human) cells but is exactly what is expected to originate from the viral capsid
or envelope of the virus.“
Link–> [69] (12) Virology lecture 1 | Virus structure and classification –
YouTube
In short, there is no debate here. Comparing bacterial research with virus
research is a completely different functionality and a totally different
criteria. And here we find the greatest chink in Kaufman’s rotting amour, that
the proteins of a virus envelope do not exist in human (eukaryotic) cells. This
completely destroys the idea that exosomes are somehow self-created viruses or
that viruses don’t exist, for the presence of the virus is proven by those
otherwise impossibly present viral proteins in the human body. Ouch! That’s got
to hurt!
Now, we could stop here, leaving an unwarranted shred of legitimacy to
Kaufman’s false dialectical. But, for the sake of further proofs and
clarification, so there’s no doubt left over, let’s take a look at the history
of Koch’s postulates to make sure this is a correct statement:
–=–
“Koch’s postulates (/ˈkɔːx/) are four criteria designed to establish a
causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were
formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier
concepts described by Jakob Henle, and refined and published by Koch in 1890.
Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and
tuberculosis (bacteria), but they have been controversially generalized to
other diseases. These postulates were generated before modern concepts in
microbial pathogenesis that cannot be examined using Koch’s postulates,
including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) and asymptomatic
carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the
Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health
.” (–Wikipedia)
–=–
Well now… it appears that emperor Kaufman suddenly has no clothes.
It is at least incredibly disingenuous and at worst purposefully misleading to
demand that Koch’s postulates be applied to virus research, for what now should
be obvious reasons. Firstly, the first virus to be seen with the human eye did
not occur until the microscope was invented and later improved to show
microscopic viruses well after these postulates were published. Trust me when I
say, Mr. Koch was long dead by then. Thus Kaufman’s claim that viral research
into SARS-Cov-2 does not meet with Koch’s postulate is cleverly both true and
false. True because those postulates simply don’t apply to viral research, and
false because of the same reason. In other words, this whole argument, parroted
and promoted by many fools that have not done any decent research into the
subject, is a giant red herring – a well-rehearsed logical fallacy. It’s very
clever, I’ll grant that much. But to put it into perspective, this would be
like saying that the way NFL players play football does not meet the PGA’s
rules of golf etiquette and dress code. They are two different methodologies
for two very different games. To be clear: the rules of isolation of bacteria
cannot be applied to the same game of isolating viruses.
–=–
Viral Lives Matter:
Isolation is Not Segregation
–=–
And that brings us full circle to this term of the medical and scientific arts,
the word isolation. Again, there are certain, numeral instances in professional
settings where the common dictionary term of words simply does not apply. In
fact, some professional terms of art do not even exist in common speech. Yet
Dr. Kaufman provides us with a whole argument against the existence of
SARS-Cov-2 based on the common Oxford dictionary definition of the word
isolation. His argument starts with this singular definition with complete
disregard to any actual scientific terminology.
Therefore, Kaufman falsely and quite smugly appears to be correct. Again, this
is a very clever slight of hand deceit, a legerdemain trickery.
Amazingly, Kaufman somehow attempts to twist the truth in his presentation into
his own logical fallacy. This is to say that he quotes from the later modified
postulates that actually allow for the existence of viruses, where he quotes
Rivers from his 1937 update to Koch’s then almost 50 year old document (as
Kaufman writes in the second and third quotes below):
“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six
criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.”
“…now it is possible to bring excellent evidence that an organism is the cause
of a malady without the complete satisfaction of the [Koch’s] postulates.”
“…particularly those [diseases] caused by viruses, the blind adherence to
Koch’s postulates may act as a hindrance instead of an aid.”
So here we have just that phenomenon – the so-called Dr. Kaufman has taken a
strict stance in blind adherence to the original, non-applicable, bacterial
postulates, convincing many others unread on the subject to do the same, which
has certainly acted as a hindrance to learning about viruses. Doesn’t this
sound a bit like religion, ignoring the new testament to promote the old or
vice-versa, like faith-based ignorance of all that is not part of the
particularly designed denominated faith (dialectic)? You must ask yourself
whether the fool is he that adheres to such a theory as Koch’s postulates
despite their invention before the age of technology to detect viruses, or he
that challenges that theory of postulates after 50 years of technological
improvement and knowledge. For here we are, now 85 years later than River’s
contribution and improvement to that theory, and what do we find? Nothing more
than a cult of misguided, uneducated beliefs in an incomplete, unusable theory,
comparing apples and oranges as if they are the same thing.
In short, Koch’s postulates are not required to be met for viruses or viral
infection, only for bacteriological ones. And this is a well-known fact in that
institution of science, which explains Kaufman’s turning away from that
institution to prey on we the non-science community. The argument is mute, and
has been for almost a century. New evidence must alter old theories, or science
is a dead art. There is no belief or consensus in properly executed science
research. And Dr. Kaufman is anything but a scientist.
Finally, without being accused of character assassination, let us take a closer
look at the good Doctor’s history in a clearer light. And for knowledge sake,
let’s use the public record without inserting our own opinion. Understand this
is not a character assassination, because that is not needed here. We need not
attack the messenger when the message is so provably shown to be a pile of
stinky smelly dung. But for those that hold to any supposed legitimacy of
flattering title or syndicalist university credentials, we must understand the
following as the final nail in Kaufman’s proverbial coffin.
Dr. Andrew R Kaufman has the following 2 specialties
NEUROLOGY
PSYCHIATRY
Dr. Andrew R Kaufman has the following 13 expertise
• Depression
• Depressive Disorder
• Manic Depressive Disorder
• Schizophrenia
• Clinical Depression
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
• Bipolar Disorder
• Mood Disorders
• Mental Illness
• Insomnia
• Personality Disorder
• Sleep Disorders
• Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD)
So he’s a licensed drug pusher. He pretends to treat pretended “mental”
disease. No specialties or experience in virology or microbiology. He’s a
psychiatrist, which for some insane reason carries the title of Medical Doctor.
Actually I know the reason. It’s so these fake “doctors” can have the highest
power granted by government, that of drug prescription, the very backbone of
their industry. After all, it’s psychiatry that invents new disease on behalf
of universities and drug companies in new drug “discovery.” For the Psychiatry
industry writes the handbook of drugs every year, entitled the DSM-5.
Who publishes it? Why none other than the private non-governmental organization
called the American Psychiatric Association. Read about that handbook here at
their website: [70] DSM-5 (psychiatry.org) “The Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) is the product of more than 10 years of
effort by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health.
Their dedication and hard work have yielded an authoritative volume that
defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses,
treatment, and research.”
To be clear, my contempt for this industry of death and legalized torture and
restraint, was documented in the two films below:
This multi-part documentary says it all. See the full version here: [71]
Psychiatry: An Industry of Death (cchr.org) (HIGHLY RECOMENDED)
Also watch The Hidden Enemy: [72] The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry’s Covert
Agenda (cchr.org) (HIGHLY RECOMENDED)
–=–
But let us not judge each individual merely by this sick and twisted history of
psychiatric hell. Let’s instead read what his own peers say about Kaufman’s
journey into Neverland:
–=–
“The Psychiatrist Who Calmly Denies Reality”
McGill University [73] Office for Science and Society “Separating Sense from
Nonsense”
24 Sep 2020 [74] COVID-19 [75] Pseudoscience
“Dr. Andrew Kaufman made the rounds in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic
by claiming the virus did not exist. Now, he leads anti-maskers in public
demonstrations and tells hundreds of thousands of YouTube users that everything
they know about medicine is wrong.
It is alarming to find a popular medical doctor on the Internet who claims that
appendicitis—a common inflammation of the appendix which can lead to sepsis and
death—is no big deal. According to him, [76] it’s simply constipation, which can
be relieved by enema. He says it so calmly, though, that you may be inclined to
believe him.
This doctor is Andrew Kaufman, based in Syracuse, New York. In the middle of a
global health pandemic, he has become a prominent voice in the COVID denialism
movement online. Many of his lengthy commentaries on YouTube have received
hundreds of thousands of views. If you have heard that the coronavirus is not
real, that scientists are actually detecting “exosomes,” you are familiar with
Kaufman’s theory. His turn away from medicine seems to have been [77] triggered
in part by reading the book A Mind of Your Own by Kelly Brogan, a psychiatrist
turned [78] virus denier and Goop contributor. Kaufman regularly takes to
YouTube to answer specific medical questions from viewers and provides them
with “information” that runs counter to basic knowledge of the human body,
endorsing bone broths and detox protocols for a variety of ailments. He is not
a naturopath; he is a psychiatrist with [79] an active medical license in his
state.
Illuminating fringe claims can poison the public discourse, but Kaufman is
popular enough that addressing his main theory is necessary. And his
even-tempered warnings about a [80] “globalist agenda” and a “manufactured
crisis” that has led to “coercion” feed the playbook of COVID-19 conspiracy
theorists.
The myth that the virus isn’t there
Sounding composed and knowledgeable, Kaufman repeatedly tells his viewers that
viruses are not a cause of human diseases. Through watching hours and hours of
video, I have seen him deny the existence of the viruses behind [81] the common
cold, [82] polio, [83] HIV-AIDS, [84] viral hepatitis, [85] chickenpox, [86]
COVID-19, and[87] measles. One of his favourite examples for why his war
against germ theory is justified is the case of Stefan Lanka, which he sells to
his audience as “the Supreme Court of Germany actually ruled that there is no
measles virus that’s been proved to exist” (from [88] his interview with London
Real, time code 1:04:00). The truth is that Lanka issued a challenge: he wanted
a single scientific paper that, on its own, proved beyond the shadow of a doubt
that the virus existed. When a doctor named David Bardens produced six papers
that together met the burden of proof, Lanka refused to pay and [89] the Court
recognized that Lanka was free to set the rules as he saw fit because this was
an award and he could give it to whomever. The measles virus is very real:
Lanka’s public challenge was, in my opinion, a no-win scenario to give credence
to his virus denialism.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman rose to fame in the early days of the pandemic by claiming
that what scientists were actually seeing with their electron microscopes was
not a new coronavirus but rather exosomes. This story is quite interesting as
it reveals a common tactic Kaufman uses. In building a bridge between an
observation and a conclusion he likes, he will often use valid science to lay
down a number of planks. When that bridge is almost complete, he runs out of
planks and takes a leap of faith, but that leap may only be noticeable by an
expert. Going back to exosomes, most of what Kaufman says is true. Our body is
made of cells, and you can imagine a cell like a soap bubble. An exosome is a
tiny bubble that buds off from that soap bubble and starts floating around,
maybe eventually fusing with another soap bubble.
These exosomes can carry payloads, like genetic material, and act as
transporters inside our body, and [90] they do look an awful lot like many
viruses. In fact, sometimes a virus will infect a cell and an exosome
containing the virus’ genetic material will bud off and go on to infect another
cell, just like a viral particle would! But here we reach the end of our
bridge. Two scientific experts discussed this issue in [91] a YouTube video and
concluded that “clearly, there are similarities between exosomes and the
coronavirus but they are absolutely different in many aspects.” Kaufman takes a
leap and claims the virus does not exist. It’s all exosomes.
In fact, Kaufman loves to mention that doctors who claim to have found an
infectious virus have never been able to fulfil Koch’s hallowed postulates. A
brief history lesson is warranted. Microbiologist Robert Koch stated during the
Victorian era (just before we even really knew what DNA and viruses were) that
to prove that a microbe caused disease, you needed to isolate it from living
things with the disease and not find it in living things without the disease.
And if you took it from a living thing that had it and gave it to a living
thing that did not, it should produce disease and you should be able to then
isolate this microbe within it. So if scientists have not done this with a
particular virus, it gives license to people like Kaufman to claim that we just
don’t know.
The problem is that Koch himself realized that requiring his postulates to be
fulfilled each and every time was mistaken. He noticed people who were carriers
of typhoid fever and of cholera who did not have symptoms. They had the
infectious agent but not the disease. Was it proof these microbes did not after
all cause the disease? No. Koch’s postulates are historically interesting, but
they have essentially been supplanted by guidelines based on the detection of
DNA or RNA from the microbe itself.
[92] For those who want to delve deeper into “Where Kaufman thinks the
coronavirus’ genetic code comes from“, click here
From MD to ND
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is, in my opinion, a naturopath now. He charges [93] USD 750
for a natural health consultation (and $1,750 for the premium package). He has
stated that technological advances in medicine are only superior to natural
methods [94] “if your bone is sticking out of your skin”; that it’s wrong to be
synthesizing drugs; and that we should [95] simply rely on natural molecules
whose safety, he claims, is known. And like naturopaths, Kaufman sees toxins
everywhere. He thinks we get them from [96] clothes, shampoo and the food supply
. Urinary tract infections, he believes, can be caused by toxins in the rectum
that [97] “translocate” to the urinary system. So naturally, he recommends
“cleansings” to many people writing in with questions. These mysterious toxins
and our rituals to purify ourselves from them remind me of the demons and
exorcisms of old, and if you think that’s a stretch, Kaufman, a psychiatrist
who has [98] done work in the criminal justice system in the past, thinks [99]
“demon possession may actually be a factor in some mental illness” like
schizophrenia. Many of the comments on his live streams display a strong
religious fervour—“Yes demons are for real” and “Just walk with Christ and you
are save [sic] even if they kill you!”—so much so that you would think you were
watching the world’s most unflappable preacher.
But Kaufman is not content to embrace naturopathy and deny the existence of
germs: he has to imply that this pandemic just doesn’t add up. He has called
lockdowns a form of [100] “house arrest” and [101] “martial law”, taking away
people’s right to assemble and right to religion. He has claimed (erroneously)
that vaccines are [102] “syringes full of poison” and that masks simultaneously
have [103] pores too big to block the “virus” (whatever that means for him) but
[104] small enough to significantly reduce your oxygen supply, which makes no
scientific sense. He rhetorically asks the question, “Who wears masks?”, but
does not answer it with “doctors, dentists, nurses.” [105] “People who are
hiding something,” he says, “people who are being dishonest, people who are
thieves.” He lost his [106] remaining part-time doctor job recently for refusing
to wear a mask and has since been [107] leading a group of unmasked people into
local businesses to make a stand.
He worries this [108] “manufactured crisis” has a goal, which is to make people
reliant on government handouts, a common conspiracist belief of the “freedom”
reactionaries. To put icing on this martyrdom cake, he has [109] tied Bill Gates
to the eugenics movement and was featured on London Real, a video channel [110]
making millions of dollars promoting self-help and conspiracy theories, thanks
to former guest David Icke, who believes reptilian alien-human hybrids secretly
run the world. Kaufman thought this interview was such a treat, [111] he wore a
suit and tie for it.
COVID denialism, belief in detox regimens, libertarian calls to protect
individual freedoms, all of these tropes are being stitched together into a
Frankenstein’s monster by unscientific people like Dr. Andrew Kaufman. Where
might it end? Sounding calm, collected, and ominous, [112] Kaufman promises that
“if we get to [the point where soldiers are holding you down to vaccinate you] ,
I promise that I will give out a ‘recipe’ that can mitigate things for people
that are held down by force and vaccinated.”
This Andy Kaufman is no joke.
– Dr. Andrew Kaufman, a psychiatrist essentially turned naturopath, has become
very popular on YouTube for denying the existence of the coronavirus.
– He claims the coronavirus is instead an exosome, a natural transport vehicle
made by our cells, and while exosomes do have some similarities to viruses,
there is undeniable evidence that the coronavirus exists.
– Dr. Kaufman is part of a conspiracy movement that believes the pandemic is
being manufactured to take away people’s rights, and his calm and confident
demeanor can appear very convincing even when he makes outrageous claims like
that appendicitis is simply constipation.”
–=–
Now, you may be reading this and saying to yourself, well gee, much of what Dr.
Andy says turns out to be true! And that’s the point. This is a time-tested
recipe for the successful false dialectic, 70-90% truth mixed with 10-30% lies,
depending on the scope of the psychological operation and the state of common
knowledge in the people one must fool. And while this article is written in a
way to disparage even myself, using fallacious and reprehensible terms like
conspiracy theorist to excuse the author’s own non-research and ignorance into
anything not accepted by the syndicalist medical and university industry, the
relative points made about Kaufman are certainly fair. And, as hard as it is to
admit, this ostracised “doctor” has ironically been cancelled from the medical
industry, which is the very reason which he now preys on the alternative
movement, knowing we are not professionals and mostly not educated in these
topics. This false dialectic simply will not work on educated people that
research and verify before they allow themselves to believe. So this is as much
a lesson about ourselves as it is about those that prey on our collective
ignorance. We are good people that want to believe in good things, and that
makes us vulnerable to bad people selling the appearance and façade of good by
wolves in sheep’s clothing.
–=–
–=–
In doing a general search for the terms terrain theory vs. germ theory, the top
of the search engine’s response came up to read “germ theory denialism.”
While this article today is not about terrain theory or my personal opinion on
it, I will simply state here that these two “theories” need not be considered
in any way antagonistic or as polar opposite to one another – unless your goal
is to create cognitive dissonance in a false dialectical. In other words, as
we’ve discussed above about what the germ line is and what the nature of all
germs (i.e. germination) is, there is nothing anywhere that says that a healthy
immune system and a generally healthy and well-nourished body is somehow not a
contributor to a state of good health. To put it another way, nobody that
speaks about germs in a professional, scientific way would in the same sentence
refer to the terrain (body) as irrelevant to the purpose and intent of a germ.
In other words, it should be obvious that at their core, these theories are
both correct, and provably so, and therefore not opposed to each other. In
fact, they are two different subjects that really have no business being placed
in opposition to each other unless the ability of the germ to be viral is
questioned in a healthy or unhealthy environment. No germ expert would promote
the notion that a diseased body (terrain) would effect the ability of the germ
to fulfil its parasitic goal. Again, it’s a non sequitur.
It’s ok, folks, you can believe in both theories, because both theories have
merit. But profiteers like Kaufman, including both sides of the isle of
pharmaceutical drug (chemicals) and “natural” supplement product sellers, make
their profits from the artificial controversy they promote, not from the actual
effect of their products. Those that believe in one theory believe the
practitioners that support and supplement or treat for that theory, and
vice-versa. It’s time to declare peace, to return to actual science in method,
and to call bullshit on most of the “mainstream” and “alternative” crap being
peddled out there. For it is the controversy itself that keeps the
disinformation agents and profiteers in business and in the news. Remember, the
cancellation of one thing requires the preservation of it to promote it’s
opposite. No source, no opposition. You may research both theories yourself, of
course, for this post has gone on long enough. Just remember that like Mr. Koch
and Mr. Pasteur did over 100 years ago, we must always keep neutrality and
scientific observation at the top of and binding over our ill-formed opinions
and theories, remembering that all theories are temporary and meant to be
improved upon or outright disproved. That’s the backbone of legitimacy in any
art or science venture.
As for this Psych Doctor turned conman-naturopath, I can only request that
anyone that has interviewed or supported this quack and his absolutely
disprovable theories must immediately, officially retract their support and
correct the record with their listenership. Do not be afraid to have a clear
conscious. Do not pretend that truth has two sides and that everyone deserves
to be heard. Do not do what the mainstream does in its constant controlled
opposition and competing stories, then disclaiming to be fair and balanced and
that the audience is smart enough to decide what is true. That’s completely
evil, irresponsible, and just bad journalism. That is a lack of integrity and
outright laziness. If not, then stop calling yourself and your show as part of
the “truth” movement and start calling it what it really is – ENTERTAINMENT.
For this is the worst kind of lie, the worse kind of lack of
self-responsibility and self-government, making you part of the problem, not
the solution.
As I have the good fortune to speak privately with many prominent hosts and
authors in the alternative sphere, those that I consider legitimate have one
thing in common, and that is that we’ve all been “handled” by some of the same
people. I will keep these names private on both ends for the purposes of this
post, but it is important to know that DR. Kaufman was seemingly invented
overnight at the same time Judy Mikovits arrived on the scene (see Plandemic
movie and the 100’s of hit pieces all over the mainstream news about her.) Yet
there is virtually nothing about this provocateur’s psychiatrist in comparison.
Also, there are a few of us that indeed have retracted any support of this
quack, as well as full retractions of his supposed, unverifiable credentials.
As an example of this provocateurs’ actions and intention, we see in this
interview that Kaufman was literally kicked off the show for attempting to
character assassinate Dr. Judy Mikovits (an actual PhD virologist), even going
so far as to deny the importance of her credentials, while apparently falsely
claiming his own. Watch as the agent provocateur’ first sets up the scene that
viruses don’t exist knowing that a virologist is coming on, then saying “does
anyone know what she’s saying” while goading on the lack of most audience and
panel members ability to understand the terms of science Dr. Mikovits uses.
Then watch as she attempts to explain how it all works with the actual meaning
of specific “Virus isolation,” even agreeing with Kaufman in his very layman
assessment, and then watch as he attacks his target with unfortunate,
fallacious, and downright asinine failure. Note that he uses the common
definition of “isolation” instead of the scientific definition, which she tries
to explain the difference between, that a parasite and its host are the virus.
Listen also to the host that falls for the logical fallacy Kaufman is
proposing, believing the virus is not “isolated” according to the common
meaning, which is TRUE. He doesn't know the difference between the scientific
terms of art cause and causative. Then Kaufman is kicked off the show for his
extremely unprofessional behaviour, so that a real doctor (PhD) with actual
experience in gain of function research can explain what’s actually happening
with the Covid vaccine.
Link–> [113] Special Event Roundtable with Dr. Andrew Kaufman vs. Dr. Judy
Mikovits (bitchute.com)
[113] https://www.bitchute.com/video/FCtfAL3A6drA/
Finally, there’s this comment:
[114] Mark McClain – Who is Dr. Andrew Kaufman, the supposed accredited MIT
scientist behind COVID-19 denialist theories? Are his arguments valid?
[114] https://www.quora.com/profile/Mark-McClain
I have spent some time trying to figure out who Dr. Andrew Kaufman is.
According to London Real tv, who have posted Kaufman’s one YouTube video, say
he studied at Duke, MIT and Medical University of South Carolina. Matching
those qualifications to Dr. Andrew Kaufman and a forensic psychiatrist from New
York is the result. I also found a disciplinary action from the state of Ohio
in 2012 for Dr. Andrew Kaufman who studied at University of South Carolina and
Duke. Here is the action of the Ohio Disciplinary Board: Andrew Russell
Kaufman, M.D. Dr. Kaufman participated in a research project that offered
participants a $25 gift code to [115] Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel,
Computers, Books, DVDs & more as an incentive. After the study concluded Dr.
Kaufman used nearly all the remaining gift codes, which had been purchased with
unrestricted grant money from a pharmaceutical company, to purchase personal
items. Dr. Kaufman later took steps to cancel the order and return the
merchandise. However, as a result of his actions, Dr. Kaufman was suspended
from the residency program and notified that his status would be listed as
nonprogram completion, which caused his resident training license to become
inactive. Duke University and Dr. Kaufman have since executed an agreement
providing for a six-month remediation program beginning on January 1, 2009 that
will enable Dr. Kaufman to complete his residency program.
Before the North Carolina Medical Board In re: Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D.
Consent Order. 2008-11-26:
http://www.circare.org/pd/kaufman_20081126.pdf
I have no idea what expertise this guy would possibly have about the
coronavirus. His specialty is psychiatry of the criminal mind. His one video is
repeated by conspiracy theorists, but I could not find anything of relevant
research. He has a YouTube video. Conspiracy theorists like it. Not the type of
source I would deem reliable.
Coupon fraud case link here: [117] Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D. Before the North
Carolina Medical Board In re: Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D. Consent Order.
2008-11-26 (circare.org)
–=–
–=–
In conclusion, I don’t really have much to say. I have provided you with what I
feel is sufficient evidence and research to clear up this false debate. I must
remind people that he who speaks some truth should not be given the benefit of
the doubt that all his speech is as well the truth. This nonsensical shrink
must not be allowed to taint the minds of the few of us that can still think
for ourselves, for we are being bombarded with disinfo and false dialectics
from every angle.
I hope this has helped in your own understanding and dissemination of all this
research and to help you to see the enemies among us, acting as if they are one
of us to take advantage of and mislead us.
Finally, I’m happy to say that my next documentary, part 2 of Wagging the Dog,
the Story Behind the Story of Covid-19, will be coming out soon. It will
consist almost entirely of more panel discussions behind the closed doors of
the NIH speaking about all the viruses they have mutated through gain of
function in the lab and allowed to escape. Thus, one of the reasons I have
written this article today is that I cannot very well present such primary
evidence as the very scientists that mutate viruses while funded by the NIH if
my audience have any doubt that viruses even exist, my greatest reason for
feeling the need to present this research to you today.
Be well, and seek only the Truth.
.
–Clint > richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, April 14th, 2021
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/#WhyDoesHegeUseDial
[3] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/#SciLog
[4] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/special
[5] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/relation
[6] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/particular
[7] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subject
[8] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/activity
[9] https://www.etymonline.com/word/virus#etymonline_v_7825
[10] https://www.etymonline.com/word/viral#etymonline_v_25413
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_louse
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_louse
[13] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594412/
[14] https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Pthirus_pubis/
[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594412/
[16] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/virus#
[17] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/virulent#
18] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Venom#
[19] https://www.britannica.com/science/coordination-compound
[20] https://www.britannica.com/science/molecular-weight
[21] https://www.britannica.com/science/protein
[22] https://www.britannica.com/science/DNA
[23] https://www.britannica.com/science/genetic-code
[24] https://www.britannica.com/science/virus
[25] https://www.britannica.com/science/microRNA
[26] https://www.britannica.com/science/gene
[27] https://www.britannica.com/science/eukaryote
[28] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhibit
[29] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhibiting
[30] https://www.britannica.com/science/cancer-disease
[31] https://www.britannica.com/science/tumor
[32] https://www.britannica.com/animal/animal
[33] https://www.britannica.com/science/transposon
[34] https://www.britannica.com/science/sperm
[35] https://www.britannica.com/science/egg-biology
[36] https://www.britannica.com/science/RNA
[37] http://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/germ-line
[39] http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Virulent#
[40] https://www.weblyf.com/2020/04/dr-andrew-kaufman-and-the-exosomes-coronavirus-truth/
[42] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00090/full
[43] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378677/
[44] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23441990/
[46] https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/563/eaaz3426.full
[47] https://www.mdpi.com/journal/viruses/special_issues/viruses_exosomes
[48] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30416610/
[50] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820302537
[52] https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/
https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/falkow_1988_koch/#main
https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/falkow_1988_koch/#main
https://www.elsevier.com/books/fenner-and-whites-medical-virology/burrell/978-0-12-375156-0
https://www.elsevier.com/books/fenner-and-whites-medical-virology/burrell/978-0-12-375156-0
[56] https://virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/fredericks-and-relman/#main
[57] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00347-1#Fig2
[58] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00347-1#Fig2
[59] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00347-1#Fig11
[60] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00347-1#ref-CR52
[61] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00347-1#Fig2
[62] https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-021-00347-1
[63] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eukaryote
[65] https://sciencetrends.com/the-difference-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/
[66] https://sciencetrends.com/cell-membrane-function-and-definition/
[68] https://www.reference.com/science/virus-prokaryote-eukaryote-75502fc6c5f0a5f
[69] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDzCXvTgAGM
[71] https://www.cchr.org/documentaries/psychiatry-an-industry-of-death/introduction.html
[72] https://www.cchr.org/documentaries/hidden-enemy/watch.html
[73] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/
[74] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/category/article-categories/covid-19
[75] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/category/article-categories/pseudoscience
[76] https://youtu.be/x526Y0_NV6I?t=2607
[77] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=735
[78] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sxsw-goop-hivaids-denialism-antivax-kelly-brogan/
[79] http://www.nysed.gov/coms/op001/opsc2a?profcd=60&plicno=252397&namechk=KAU
[81] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=1105
[82] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=3569
[83] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=2111
[84] https://youtu.be/IM-PPfHDRYU?t=1431
[85] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=3439
[86] https://youtu.be/KGGd7-vvd9Y?t=2072
[87] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=3457
[89] https://africacheck.org/fbcheck/no-german-supreme-court-didnt-rule-that-measles-doesnt-exist/
[90] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY4pJaGJgkA&feature=youtu.be&t=1701
[91] https://youtu.be/UY4pJaGJgkA?t=1701
[92] https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/
[93] https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/sessions/
[94] https://youtu.be/x526Y0_NV6I?t=4619
[95] https://youtu.be/x526Y0_NV6I?t=4583
[96] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=459
[97] https://youtu.be/IM-PPfHDRYU?t=698
[98] https://youtu.be/x526Y0_NV6I?t=245
[99] https://youtu.be/IM-PPfHDRYU?t=3257
[100] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=2589
[101] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=2656
[102] https://youtu.be/SPNSi9lHp78?t=2026
[103] https://youtu.be/KGGd7-vvd9Y?t=3077
[104] https://youtu.be/IM-PPfHDRYU?t=1236
[105] https://youtu.be/_v2XWuPY09M?t=2714
[106] http://www.londonreal.tv/kaufman
[107] https://youtu.be/SPNSi9lHp78?t=3624
[108] http://www.londonreal.tv/kaufman
[109] http://www.londonreal.tv/kaufman
[110] https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/bv8x5a/london-real-brian-rose-digital-freedom-coronavirus
[111] https://youtu.be/qUT0lKGxfp8?t=114
[112] https://youtu.be/SPNSi9lHp78?t=1955
[113] https://www.bitchute.com/video/FCtfAL3A6drA/
[114] https://www.quora.com/profile/Mark-McClain
[116] http://www.circare.org/pd/kaufman_20081126.pdf
[117] http://www.circare.org/pd/kaufman_20081126.pdf