Beneath the fold is a transcription of a video by Dr. Andy Kaufman that I thought important enough to pass on to readers. It is called “The Rooster in the River of Rats,” a string of words that will get you to the video even if YouTube censors it. I have faithfully recorded the words, eliminating interjections and speech habits that we all have that distract from the message. What follows is, in my opinion, faithful to his thoughts.
The most important part of this transcription is the last part in which he analyzes the manner in which the original SARS-CoV (2003) was(n’t) purified before gene sequencing, so that whatever was sequenced could be anything. It was helpful in analyzing a paper forwarded to me by a bacteriologist.
The paper, by Kim, Chung et al called Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with Covid-19 was presented to me has having “isolated, purified, and sequenced” the virus. It’s a short paper, mercifully, and mostly accessible to non-scientists. In it I found no evidence that they did anything more than isolate and sequence a virus, no purification, no proof of filterability.*
They then found that the sequence matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus to the degree of 99.5%. They noted that the same RNA was obtained at the end of the process that they had put in at the beginning, but in greater quantity.” (See footnote 1.) (By the way, the virus said to be flying around today is labeled SARS-CoV-2. “Covid-19” is the disease it is said to cause.)
However, I invite more scientifically grounded opinions. (Seek and ye shall find. See footnote 1.) I am, after all, but a retired CPA. (I also note that they used the RT-PCR to amplify their results X40, perhaps 3-5 levels above the normal use of the machine. There is a level of magnification where 100% of the population might have the sequence they are looking for.
*Thomas Rivers in 1937 attempted to modify Koch’s Postulates to accommodate viruses, making them six instead of four, which are: isolate, cultivate, prove filterability, replicate in host, re-isolate, detect specific immune response. These postulates were further modified in the 1960s, adding what are in effect weasel words.
Henceforth, Dr. Andy Kaufman.
“Words are very important because the influence people in certain ways. Even the word virus itself comes from the Latin which means a poison or noxious substance. Just using that word itself says is something sinister and something that will damage us. So if you are thinking about it in those terms it could be something potentially very scary. Most of the procedures that have been mandated by public health officials and governments have added to the fear and concern, like all of this personal protective equipment that’s required, asking people to wear personal face and mouth covering masks out in public and to be afraid of each other, all stimulates and amplifies the fear and concern of getting sick by people. That is part of this campaign.
Koch’s Postulates were basically formulated in the late 1800s, and it is basically the proponents of germ theory – it’s their own rules for how you prove a microorganism causes a disease. They are quite common sense, they’re quite simple, there are four of them.
- The first rule is that there should be a consistent set of symptoms that define the disease, and that the organism should be present in the people who have these symptoms, and not with people who are healthy.
- The second rule is that they should be able to isolate that infectious agent in its pure form from people who are afflicted with the illness in question. If it’s bacteria it should be grown in a pure culture, but this may not be possible for viruses.
- Number three is that you should be able to take that isolated and purified infectious agent and put it in a healthy host, and that healthy host should then come down with the same disease as the initial person that you isolated the organism from.
- And then he would be able to step four isolate and purify infectious agents from hosted that you infected and made sick.
It seems in the world of viruses that they generally tend not to pay too much attention [to Koch’s Postulates]. There are variations to Koch’s Postulates that have been applied to viruses. They adapted a paper from [Thomas] Rivers from 1937. He basically said that Koch’s Postulates were too difficult to prove in viruses so that we should make them easier so that we can prove those in viruses. … I think this is something that can be easily ignored if you want to merely say that an infectious organism is causing a disease, but if you want to prove it I don’t see how you can ignore those. For instance, how could a disease be caused by a microorganism if that microorganism is present in people who are both healthy and sick?
[About the PCR and amplification] … I think an easy way to understand that is just go to your stereo and turn the volume way way up. What you’ll notice is you’ll start hearing some noise in the signal. What you’re doing is increasing the amplification, and when you increase the amplification you’re also increasing the signal and also the noise. If you amplify it enough you could misinterpret the noise for a signal.
But I don’t think that’s the most important problem with the test. What I think is most problematic is how they obtained the genetic sequence in the first place. What they did was, they had some people who seem to have a respiratory illness. They did a procedure where they put a fiber optic scope down their throats into their lung into the bronchi … and a squirt some fluid in there and they stirred it around and suck it back up. It’s going to have a mixture of many things. It’s going to have cells from your lung, cells from your immune system, cells from the microorganisms that normally live in your body such as bacteria and fungi. It’s also going to have free genetic material that’s been shown to be present in lung RNA, and there may be, if the person has the disease, exosomes. These are small particles that your cells secrete, more so during an acute infectious process. They have a signaling and other functions that actually help you fight the disease.
With all those sources of genetic material, the way they prepared the sample – they just took that lung fluid. They didn’t do any purification steps. They mixed it with an enzyme to dissolve the membrane so that anything inside of a cell membrane would be released. Then they had various probes and did genetic assays, including PCR. They found a sequence and then they sequenced that, and then what they did to say that it was a coronavirus was to compare the sequence of SARS-Cov-1, the 2003 virus.
And by the way, [SARS-Cov-2 was] actually found out by the same exact procedure. So in order to determine that these two were related, they said there was 79.6% sequence identity between the two samples. Just for frame of reference, between humans and chimpanzees, there is 96% sequence identity. So we are more closely related to chimpanzees than these two sequences are related to each other. And it is more pronounced than that. These sequences only have a few tens of thousands of base pairs. The amount of base pairs in human genomes is orders of magnitude higher. So we are talking about two sequences that you cannot really even say are related and that you don’t even know what the source of the RNA was.
So developing a test for the RNA, you really have no idea what you testing for even if the test is 100% accurate.”
Footnote 1: Seek and ye shall find. This is a summary of the findings of this very paper from David Crowe in a chapter titled Isolation Versus Purification. In summarizing the chapter, virologists are lying when they say they have “isolated” a virus, that is, they are not being honest. Their intention is confuse terminology, as “isolation” and “purification” certainly sound like the same thing to the average non-scientist.
Here is Crowe on the specific paper I mentioned above, Identification of a Coronavirus Isolated From a Patient in Korea with COVID-19. These guys just flat-out lie.
“In a paper claiming isolation of COVID-19 virus from a patient in Korea:
- Impure materials were obtained (nose and throat swabs), antibiotics were added, and then the material was cultured in vero cells with various growth stimulating substances.
- Isolation was defined as “cytopathic effects” (i.e. some cells in the cell culture died).
- They noted that the same RNA was obtained at the end of the process that they had put in at the beginning, but in greater quantity. However, because RT-qPCR is not reliably quantitative, this is not a supportable statement, and cannot be used as proof that a virus was replicating.”