Sloppy virology

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.”

 

16 thoughts on “Sloppy virology”

  1. The thing that strikes me about PCR amplification is like you said, if they ran enough amplification cycles would we all test positive? Same logic with HIV. It’s very strange.

    From what I gather, the argument made by Kaufman and I’ve seen made here by David Crowe is that there are literally BILLIONS (maybe even trillions?) of different unknown/undocumented bacteria, viruses, and exosomes produced by the body. When I found the CDC was using a primer sequence that was already present in human chromosome 8, that could have just been the tip of the iceberg. People told me then that it wouldn’t matter because DNA is zipped unlike RNA, but DNA is known to unzip during replication. All it would take would be one exposed section of unzipped DNA to cause the PCR probes to connect. The possibility for bad results just seems nearly innumerable.

    You should always pay attention in the RT-PCR process to how long the primer/probe target sequence chains are. Theoretically, they should make those very long (more than 18 sequences long) because the longer they are, the less likely there could be a random match. Maximum amplification cycles (40 or more) with minimum sequence lengths (under 20) is a recipe for a false positive.

    Also, the PCR process itself with constant heating seems like it has a tendency to rearrange these sequences. All it takes is one little error to match the sequence and then get amplified a gazillion times by all those amplification cycles.

    Remember, the false positive rate of the PCR test is critical to understanding this whole situation. If 5-10% of PCR tests result in false positives, it explains the entire sham. And there doesn’t even need to be a virus. You could have some real virus that exists in a laboratory somewhere yes, but still 100% of the PCR results in the field are false positives fueled by media hysteria.

    I would love for David Crowe to help me understand more about how they sequence the entire virus. It is understandable how they test for short 20-sequence sections of the code with PCR, but from there how are they supposed to be filling in the remaining 30,000 characters? From what I’ve read, that process is also similar to PCR. I just don’t understand how they claim to be reliably sequencing the entire genome.

    Obviously, the average person is not getting a full genetic sequence based on their positive PCR result, but you have to wonder how many would hold up to that kind of scrutiny. We need to know. And we need to know how they claim to be doing the full genome sequencing.

    And this is not to mention the idea that SARS-CoV-2 might be totally harmless. Even if we somehow discover that the PCR results are legitimate, which I am very doubtful of, there is still no connection being shown between a positive PCR result and a specific illness. The science on this is not only inadequate, it is inadequate several layers deep.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I suspect that in the planning for this pandemic, they had a committee assigned to set up a testing procedure that would produce desired results (occasional positives) but that would be a black box to the people administering it. After all, you have medical professionals and lab technicians who are honest and who think they are really administering a test for a virus. Just having letters after their names does not make them less gullible than ordinary people. In order for the pandemic to fly, the black box (RT-PCR) was essential.

      This takes me back to Kary Mullis, and his timely death last August. I’ve read his book now and judge him to be an independent thinker who would not go along to get along. Not only did he stand tall and almost alone on AIDS and HIV, but also on the depletion of the ozone layer (hoax, he says, timed to happen right around the time a patent on the most used Freon was to expire). He also dissed global warming (people are ants living on the seashore who do not affect climate). So it made sense that since they were going to use his PCR, he had to go away. I hope they merely sent him to Santa Catarina, but would not be surprised if they murdered him by some means. He is said to have died of pneumonia. Right.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Perhaps eukaryote was written out of the script so he wouldn’t have to answer pointed questions about how he manufactured his supposed ogilios.?

        Like

        Reply

          1. “The term “oligonucleotide” or “oligo” usually refers to a synthetic laboratory-made DNA or RNA strand. Oligonucleotides are used in biochemistry, biology, molecular diagnostics, genomics, and other molecular biology experiments. Almost all applications using oligos involve synthesizing the complementary strand of a targeted, naturally occurring, strand of nucleic acid sequence.”

            https://www.biosyn.com/faq/what-is-an-oligo-or-oligonucleotide.aspx

            Eukaryote cooked up life at cetus…

            “For Kary “cooking” meant reflecting on variations and juxtapositions of chemical “ingredients”, in this case he was focused on those being use at his lab at the Emeryville, CA based CETUS Corporation. Dr. Mullis had been seeking a means to increase the demand for oligonucleotides, the short DNA or RNA molecules representing a few repeating units of a complex of chemicals. Dr. Mullis and his colleagues had been tasked to craft these by hand which represented a time intensive procedure. The recent introduction of new technology to the lab had served to alleviate the production process, shortening the time frame for this from three weeks to eight hours.”

            https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S252973251903002

            …now dr.oligo does the lord’s work…

            Like

            Reply

            2. yes, thanks for your comment smj. the second link (re mullis) doesn’t work. i worked around and got there, it just needs one more zero at the end to work.

              Like

              Reply

  2. Add serology testing for antibodies (exposure), notorious for fudging and misinterpreting purpose, results and intent, and the numbers can again be inflated for whatever purpose the propaganda supports. Repeat a few million times on various media and nobody will have a clue what’s going on. Mega-gaslighting program in the making to make damn sure the high level of cultural insanity remains in our consciousness.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Pingback: Test is 100% proof of nothing in the River of Rats | Fakeologist.com

  4. Mark, thank you for taking the painstaking time to transcribe part of Kaufman’s video. A number of people have requested that Kaufman provide transcripts.

    One thing I recall Kaufman stating (not included in your transcript here) was his concern that once the sputum sample was extracted, it was being “stressed” by the addition of antibiotics (namely nystatin and penicillin-streptomycin mentioned in the study you linked), and that very action of induced stress could activate a virus, or as he proposes, an exosome, to then present itself, so to speak. So, without the agitation, there may have been no activation at all. And all of this is taking place OUTSIDE the body – in the lab.

    So, in my own words, if the specimen (presumably containing a virus) had stayed intact in the body, there may have been no influence on the body at all – it would be harmless. In fact, I would argue (not that I am a scientist) that just the extraction alone could induce variables – mainly stressor variables – that could influence the specimen regardless of any other added stressors. The study also notes the supplementation of fetal bovine serum to the specimen. Well, it would seem to me that could be considered an outside stressor, as whatever is in that specimen would recognize it as an invader (non-human cells) and could produce an inflammatory response – hence, what would look like a virus or exosome (since they are nearly identical).

    This is why many of us are concerned about vaccines inducing illness, because the ingredients themselves are foreign to the body (many from other animal species), and the body subsequently reacts in a defensive response. So, essentially, what ever these scientists are producing in the lab with their tests does not reflect accurately what is genuinely going on in our bodies. And when they claim to “isolate” a virus, this is an arbitrary definition of the word to say the least – indeed, it’s highly misleading and deceptive.

    To reiterate, because this is long-winded and hard to follow (I apologize), Kaufman was clear that it is possible that the said virus (which is most likely an exosome) is a symptom of a dis-ease, NOT the cause. But, in this case, in the lab, it would be hard to distinguish which came first – although it seems logical to me which came first.

    This whole thing brings me back to the distinction between endogenous viruses and exogenous viruses. If, as I have suggested from the beginning, there is such a thing as a coronavirus, it is most likely ENDOGENOUS, and simply part of our DNA – integrated into our genome, and doing NO harm. In fact, it may serve a helpful purpose. But when extracted from the body amongst other parts of our genome, and then bombarded with outside stressors, it could “feel” or “think” it is being attacked, and then begin to exhibit harmful patterns of behavior. Similarly, when inside the body, a virus, such as a coronavirus, could feel attacked if let’s say the body was injected with a vaccine, or some foreign matter that would unnaturally excite it to then be activated and literally “react”. Scientists like to rationalize this incidence with a scientific terms called “virus interference”.

    There are four books that I have read – all written prior this event. It’s only since this event, though, that I purchased and scoured through them. I highly recommend all 4 of them, as they point to this very issue (among others) of very sloppy virology. They all indicate that virology is based on pseudoscience – whether it be with regard to the RT-PCR test, the purification or isolation of a virus, or the proof that a virus (regardless if it exists in the body and/or in a lab) can even cause an illness or disease. It’s messy all over the place!

    My list of recommended books:
    Ten Lies About Aids by Etienne de Harven, M.D. and Jean-Claude Roussez
    Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause Aids? by Rebecca Culshaw
    Fear of the Invisible: How Scared Should We Be of Viruses and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS? by Janine Roberts
    Virus Mania*: How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Kohnlein
    *my personal favorite (if I had to pick one)

    I’ll just conclude my very long ramble here with a quote from Virus Mania – hopefully it sums up what I was trying to say here: “the research work of geneticist Barbara McClintock is a milestone…she reports that the genetic material of living beings can constantly alter by being hit by “shocks”. These shocks can be toxins, but also other materials that produced stress in the test-tube…This in turn can lead to the formation of new genetic sequences, which were unverifiable (in vivo and in vitro) before…which are then picked up by the PCR tests…all this, mind you without a pathogenic virus that attacks from outside.”

    Like

    Reply

    1. Steph – please see my added Footnote 1 above – it links to David Crowe and Infectious Myth, a chapter titled Isolation Versus Purification. The other day I went looking for evidence that SARS-Cov-2 had been isolated and purified. I found that it had been “isolated” by many sources, but never purified. However, and virologists know this, the public interprets the two words as having the same meaning. Crowe, interestingly, referring to a paper describing isolation of a virus in mice said “authors claimed to fulfil [sic] Koch’s postulates but in the absence of virus purification, this is a bald faced lie.” He does not often use language like that.

      Regarding transcription of Kaufman, I used software called Dragon Naturally Speaking. I had Kaufman on my browser and MS Word aside it in the icons at the bottom of the screen. I would listen to him speak and then pause him, click on Word, and repeat his words. I put maybe two hours into it. It would be nice if I could just hold the microphone on Kaufman’s video and have Dragon transcribe it in Word without me as the intermediary, in fact, I tried it, but it does not work that way.

      Dragon is very useful for other purposes. I still write with my fingers, but if my mouth was connected to my brain, I could eliminate them.

      Like

      Reply

      1. MT – You hit the nail on the head here. In my opinion, the only way to confront this scam most profoundly is through qualitative means (avoiding all numbers debates) – pointing out the initial mistake(s) – or deception (I lean toward the latter). In theory, the whole house of cards should crumble, based on this information. But, the inverse is occurring here – instead we are left with the burden of proof (ie – proving that the virus was NOT purified and isolated).

        Like

        Reply

  6. BTW, massive loads of #3,4 & 5 rebarb are going into Denver to an underground military complex. Lakewood, CO as well. It is common knowledge among researchers pertaining to DIA. Will any of you take the vax or be terminated?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment