A project gone awry: Transcribing a Kaufman interview

A few days ago I watched a video, Dr. Andrew Kaufman interviewed by Reinette Senum. The comedian Ray Romano in his standup act says to the audience that he had his own TV show, and “you will too” – that is, all of us will someday have a TV show. I suppose that is why Senum has a podcast. She’s a so-so interviewer, but fortunately just let Kaufman go without much interference. I thought that Kaufman was at his best, in fact, was so good that the video would not last on censorious YouTube. I could download the video, but that requires giving money to YouTube every month, and I cannot do that in good conscience.

I had a flash! I use a program called Dragon Naturally Speaking, from Nuance. With that program I can speak into a microphone and watch my words appear on the screen. The program is adapted to me and my nuances, so to speak, so that there are are very few mistakes when it is just me and the mic. There are obstacles, such as names and places, but Nuance has done a really good job of covering as much as possible. For instance, Kaufman mentions Stanford Professor John Ioannidis – Nuance has no clue about that and mangles it. But I knew that would happen and easily inserted the correct spelling. Kaufman also mentions Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, the inventor of the microscope, and Nuance got it right!

So I put the podcast on my iPad comma and laid the microphone next to it comma and let it rip period One thing about Nuance comma is that you have to speak punctuation period all of the various symbols have a name period Would this be a problem question mark Yes comma I thought but I could easily work around it in post production period

Not so. It took hours. Maybe a third of the way though, as I replayed the podcast and edited the text, I wanted out. It was tedious, and perhaps futile as well. Maybe the video will be left alone by our overlords. Maybe I should be outside putting up wood for the winter. Nonetheless, I persisted. Below is the original podcast, and the Nuance rendition thereof. For the transcript I eliminated connectors such as “and” and habits of speech like “you know” and “basically” and “right.” At times I merely inserted my own words where I thought Kaufman was somewhat unintelligible. I did not alter any meaning. I did not use Senum’s questions, which were more like rambling mini-speeches. Here we go.

The role of nutrition in medical education

I think it was about one hour allotted to nutrition, maybe two. But it was basically not really nutrition.  It was like “these are the vitamins and minerals. If you have a severe deficiency in this we call it scurvy if its vitamin C.” That was pretty much the information. You now talk about different kinds of foods, what’s the science, what are the questions. They talk about cholesterol but only in in the terms of which drugs lower it – we never asked what cholesterol does the body. It’s not just the gut biome. It is your entire body biome because microorganisms are found almost everywhere. For example DNA sequences from the bacteria in your gut have been found in our own brain cells. It must have gotten there somehow.  Every inch of our skin, eyes and upper airway are covered in various types of microorganisms. They serve a vital role in keeping us alive. We can’t live without them.

What is a virus?

Talking about viruses can be very confusing. What they really and are they anything, really? The word virus itself means “poison” and comes from the Latin. It was around long before there were any microorganisms that we knew about. We didn’t know anything about microorganisms until Anton van Leeuwenhoek [Nuance caught that name and spelled it correctly!  – MT] discovered the microscope and then saw them under the microscope. We can’t see them with the naked eye. What they say are viruses are even smaller than that. You can only see them with an electron microscope, a fancy and expensive type of microscope that was invented in the late 1930s. It can only view dead, not living tissue. So, we can’t observe the behavior of any particles that small because that microscope technology only can view fixed or dead tissue. That’s a really important point because any inferences we make about how these particles behave is not from direct observation. It is indirect evidence.

So this word virus somehow was used – initially it meant poison – and later on when this microscope was invented they had some diseases that they didn’t find any bacteria associated with and so they thought that there was a smaller microorganism. This was a theory that they caused some these other diseases – polio is one example. They thought it was caused by virus. But after this microscope came out the problem was that they saw damaged tissue from people who were sick, and he saw the tiny little particles.  But there is not one particle that was predominant or uniform. In other words, they didn’t see a thousand of one particle that looked all the same and were doing the same thing. They saw a bunch of different kinds of stuff. They reasoned that it was breakdown products of dying cells that are fragments and these little particles. This is been observed repeatedly.

Then when the scientists who were trying to find this virus were about to give up, this other scientist came along, [John F.] Enders, and he developed this procedure which they call virus isolation. But it’s not isolating anything. It’s really weird that they call it this word because they do the opposite. What they do is have a culture of cells (these days a lot of times these are monkey kidney cells), and they put antibiotics, which are poisonous, in there with them, and calf serum (which can also be toxic to cells), they put it in a “minimal growth media” – in other words, like a starvation diet. Then they add some body fluid from the sick person. Then they watch this cell grow and after several days it shows cell damage. Then they see particles, because that’s what happens when cells are dying, and they call it a virus.

That’s really what they are saying a virus casuing a disease in humans is. In other words, they’ve never once taken a sample from a sick person, and then directly from that sample purified out or isolated viral particles that are uniform. They could characterize those by looking at the chemicals on the membrane, they can open them up to cleave the membrane and take out the genetic material. They could sequence it and know where it came from. They’ve never done this experiment. It is really strange because they’ve been able to do it for other things.

Symptoms are kind of a different thing, but they’ve taken people with symptoms like respiratory symptoms and taken lung fluid from them. But from that fluid, no, they’ve never purified, isolated out a particle and characterized that. What they did do is take that fluid (mind you that fluid that comes out of her lungs it has hundreds, maybe thousands of different kinds of cells – it might have lung cells, immune cells etc., then there’s different species of bacteria might be in there, and fungus) and they all have genetic material. They take a sample with thousands of sources of genetic material and pull out a few fragments that partially match what they think are viral sequences from some other experiment that they did the same way. But these sequences that they find only match like 18 to 24 bases. They’re 200 to 300 bases long. But they say that the entire genome of the virus is 30 to 40,000 bases long. So were talking about .001% of the representation of that DNA. Just because they find that it matches those 18 and 24 base sequence they say “it’s a virus.” And that’s all there is to it.

How people allow it to happen is one way to look at this, and the other way is to that what is motivating the policies from the government is not really about any illness. I would say it’s about getting control of people.

The way this happens, in terms of people allowing it to happen, is this: How many people do you think ever look at these papers? It’s a tiny fraction of people. Even when I used to do some research back in my MIT days, I’m in a microbiology lab. I remember some grad students talking about virology, the science of viruses, and they said “We don’t we don’t even read virology papers because they’re in another language.”  Now that I’ve read a bunch of them (and a lot of other papers) I agree they definitely have their unique language. Basically, nobody wants to invest the time to understand and to see whatever they’re saying. It is like they’re saying “Virologists, they’re ‘out there’.” Some scientists even think they’re really not telling anything of substance.

But so since few people actually look at the procedures and read the papers in detail. When I say read a paper I don’t mean read the introduction and conclusion. I mean read how the experiment was done, step by step, and then looking at the results from that to say what can you learn from this experiment?  Are there flaws in it? Are there controls? This so that you know this a good experiment. We should do that with every scientific paper because we definitely cannot trust that just because it’s published it will be valid.

[Senum is] pretty near Stanford University probably heard of John Ioannidis, a world-famous professor there. And he has written a lot about this and one of his most famous articles in PLOS, a high-impact journal, and one of the most referenced articles ever written. Basically it says more than half of all scientific published findings are false. So this applies to virology as well. I feel like it’s my responsibility as a physician in such a serious crisis that I need to go and look at these papers and ask – is this one of the false ones is it legit? So many severe things have been imposed upon us as a result of this.

Let me also say that I know a lot of people are skeptical of my approach and my opinions, for instance, that there is no proof of any virus causing a disease.  In order to make good decisions about these policies you don’t even need to go there.  You could just assume that this virus does exist and that it does cause illness. None of that is been shown scientifically. You could just assume it because it’s hard not to. All of our lives we’ve grown up believing we get each other sick that viruses make a sick. Even though we never really knew what they really were. Based on that if you just look at the epidemiological data, like how many people have died, clearly died from this disease. The CDC just put out these numbers last weekend. in the entire nation year-to-date it’s been less than 10,000 people.

The recent CDC rearrangement of Covid data

This is a confusing issue. They didn’t actually change the numbers at the CDC. They just did a different analysis. The way that we always learned about who dies from what is through death certificates. Now this is declared a public health crisis in every state in the country after the World Health Organization announced it as a pandemic. The normal procedure when we have a health crisis is that everyone who dies suspiciously related to the crisis, every single body, goes to the medical examiner for autopsy. They want to be able to learn about the health crisis. How do people die from it? Is it the same thing? What’s causing it? That’s the main way our system has of making those determinations. When you do an autopsy with the medical examiner you can determine the cause of death with a pretty good degree of certainty. That’s the main thing that they do.

In day-to-day life when people die like it’s only under certain circumstances that an autopsy would be performed, as with a suspicious death or if the family requested it, or if it was a rare disease. Usually what happens is that the doctor who is taking care of the person when they die, the physician of record, would fill out a death certificate. They would put the immediate cause of death in and associated conditions. So, for example, you might die of pneumonia, but you had emphysema. If you didn’t have emphysema when you got pneumonia, you really died of emphysema, but the immediate cause is pneumonia.

You also get situations like when someone has cancer. When you have cancer, you don’t die directly from cancer, as if the tumor were to take the place of your heart and your heart can’t beat. The tumor invades your immune system and you can’t defend yourself. You get opportunistic infections and you die of the infection.  Did you die of the cancer or the infection?  If you had the cancer when you got that infection, you really died of the cancer.

Normally it would be recorded that cancer was the cause of death and the infection was just the immediate condition. For purposes of statistics the CDC would count that as a cancer death. Cancer is the second leading cause of death, according to the CDC.

So that’s how that works normally. Now they changed these policies on for this Covid pandemic. They reverse the autopsy thing and they prevented anybody from sending up bodies for autopsies. That really doesn’t make any sense because even if we knew that it was this virus we still don’t know how it causes people to die from that level of pathology – looking under the microscope. So it really doesn’t make sense.

The CDC and death certificates

The other thing that happened is the CDC issued a guidance, and many state health departments echo the same sentiment. They changed how they how doctors now fill out a death certificate. What CDC was saying is if there is a suspicion of Covid, put Covid as the cause of death. That doesn’t make sense at all. The death certificate is used for vital records and policy. You wouldn’t use you suspicion. You have to have certainty to fill that out. But there were also further instructions that if you have another underlying condition and Covid, you’re supposed to put Covid as the cause of death.

That’s never happened before either. So like that cancer infection case, now it would be the infection being the cause of death and the cancer would be put aside. So this doesn’t really make sense and it’s far off from the normal procedure. Why would you change the procedure in a crisis? The procedures have been established for 50, 75 or a 100.

It’s got to create some suspicion. So what the CDC did last week is that they classified the deaths based on the number of other illnesses, and that those other illnesses would’ve been the cause of death if we filled that the death certificates like we did a year ago. So I’m interpreting that to say that all of the people that had other comorbidities died of those other illnesses. And only the people where Covid was listed as the only cause of death were true Covid-related deaths.

That’s how I’m interpreting that, and that’s how it would be for other illnesses like this. That’s what the truth is. If you if you are in a nursing home and you have end-stage dementia if you just get a cold it could kill you. So it’s irrelevant because the thing is that other condition is really what led to your demise. The CDC is really being truthful, saying we acknowledge that we actually change the entire procedure for cause of death. So we are giving you the data here so you can see the way would’ve been if we didn’t change all the policies we did.

So we have something that less than 10,000 people died from Covid. How many thousand people die from suicide or drug overdoses, car accidents.  I know that the suicide rate has gone up a third this year.  It’s not something that we would take any measures for. 10,000 deaths we might lead to a charity that pops up. There might be some kind of policy that gives some funding to address that issue, but there would be no taking away of freedoms, there be no shutting down economy.

The brainwashed masses

[Interviewer asks why the American psyche cannot handle the good news that Covid is not a problem.]

Well I think there is a complicated question. I really have spent a lot of time thinking about this and I think the best way to conceptualize this is that almost all of the people in our country and really in almost every country in the world are basically have been brainwashed into a cult. From the time we are very young we are sent off to public indoctrination camps. They call them schools but in the schools what are the real lessons right we learn? Basically, to submit to authority, to ignore our only bodily needs, and ignore our own curiosity. We asked for permission to go to the bathroom. If we are in an educational pursuits that have captured our imagination and passion, as soon as the bell rings we have to immediately drop it. It’s not important and we shuttle on to another space.  People can think about this and take it for granted, but this continues all the way through.

The “education system,” they call it that, but it’s not a place where people develop a passion for learning, where they do their own research, or learn critical thinking and reasoning skills. It’s a place where they go and they are given spoon-fed specific information. That information has been a very biased and one-sided. Over time that body of information that were told to accept as truth shapes us. It gives us a couple of lessons. One is that we shouldn’t question authority, and what they tell us is actually true in terms of our history or culture etc. Science, cosmology all the these things are not to be questioned. Viruses would be one of those things. We all know that viruses make us sick.

This puts us in a state where eventually we give into this. This is the way it is. Then we go to our jobs (inwhich most people are miserable). We get to spend so much of your life working just to survive and then you so exhausted when you come home every day just want entertainment. That has different flavors. Sometimes it involves alcohol, TV, social media, sports – all kinds of things. But it’s just diversions. In other words people are so exhausted they’re not going to come home and be curious about the world and want to learn about all kinds of interesting things. They just want to tune out so that they can recharge and go back to the same thing the next day.

So when we have in a crisis like this people are just ill-equipped to handle it because they’re not used to  doing things for themselves. They just kind of follow a routine, being told what to do, and so basically they continue that paradigm.

The role of fear

Now in this case they also use fear as a major player. This all came down at the end of March, the announcement of the pandemic.  Then all of a sudden everybody’s locking down. They’re saying you’re going to die. People are afraid to even go for medical treatment because the get sick and die from someone. They changed all the medical procedures in hospitals and nursing homes. Not everywhere, but in certain places where they had a lot of deaths and because of all this fear and panic, and just acceptance of what the authority figure set off the bat, then everyone got in line.

Over time I expected more people to realize that they’re not seeing people dying around them. So why do we have to do all these crazy things? It’s is really interesting but it’s just like if you took someone out of a cult. They’ve been brainwashed and everything they know is false. You try to sit them down and talk rationally and tell them the truth, even if it’s a child, tell them how much you care about them. Then the minute you turn your back they run back to the cult. That’s the cultish quality about it that I get now. Even my own family members – through my whole life they’ve looked at me as like the bright student, the successful one, the smart doctor,  and now when the shit’s hit the fan and really what I have to say is important, they can’t even take in the information.

Should we reach out to the masked masses?

I think that it’s not even something worth spending the energy on. The way I look at it is that certain people reached a point that they become open to this material, to the truthful material, to the scientific material. When they reach that point that they are open, that’s why I exist. I want to give this information to those people. I also want to give this information to people who are already aware of the truth and I want to give them more detail about it. I want to drill down to the next deeper level. But I’m also speaking to those people who have an opening. They want to check it out and I want to help them come to the other side. But most of the people right now, including my own family, they’re not open. It’s not possible to talk to them. If they were ready they could come to us. So I say no let them come to me when they’re ready because I’ve never had a successful discussion about any of this.

I think a big factor is cognitive dissonance. If you look at the truth of the situation and realize the government is doing these things without justification, then you have to realize that they are not acting in our favor. They are against us. They are trying to persecute us in some way and that’s really uncomfortable because what does that mean? Do I have to fight a revolution? Do I have to risk being arrested? It is all too uncomfortable. And if I am lucky enough to still have a job, am I going to lose that?  There’s risk once you look at this truth. Then you must make sacrifices to live according to that truth, like I did and like you did, I had contract terminated. Most people are not willing to make those sacrifices.

What to do, how to respond?

There are some documents written in the past that were really planning for this event that you can look at and get some clues. There’s the Rockefeller Institute document from 2010 with Lockstep. In there it talks about increasing resistance from the public. They’re fully expecting that. In fact, think they want to bring it about. I think that’s why they’re pushing this divide and conquer strategy, allowing rioting in the cities and pushing for you military troops to come in.  If it amps up they could use the military possibly to get full control.  So there’s some clues there about what would happen with resistance or how might things might get ramped up.

I would say the most important thing for us to do is, first of all, learn about what is happening, do our own research, form our own opinion. If you do that, inevitably, you’ll arrive so a similar opinion as we have, to see that all these procedures don’t match the situation, no matter whether you believe in a virus or not. Then you decide I’m not going to follow them anymore. From day one I’ve not followed one procedure or order put for by an illegal executive order. I won’t no matter what happens going forward.  If people just do that you don’t have to convince anyone else. You just do it for yourself. You set an example, you walk proud when you’re out in public without a mask. That is going to be what changes this. More people will do that, hopefully, over time. That is, I think, the most important in a way to resist.

We have a local campfire group that is now almost 50 people that we meet every couple weeks. We do some [maskless] shopping trips and we talk about stuff. And so everybody’s talked about their experience with being maskless. They’ve all been intimidated and harassed. Many of the women especially in some situations just put it on to avoid that, which is really unfortunate. It sends the wrong message. I can understand. How much harassment do you want to face? I don’t like going out to the store either because I face it as well. Even though I carry myself in a certain way and am impervious to it to some degree, it eats away at you. People running away. I went to check out some pineapples in the produce section and there was a woman there at the bananas right next to me and she looked up and saw me maskless and she jumped back.  She put her bananas down. She thought I must have contaminated them, and she went to different section of the store. It’s kind of like when you’re a kid and you’ve got cooties.

You need to learn to trust yourself, because of what I was talking about earlier with the cult indoctrination. That’s all about deferring your authority and sovereignty and trust to a designated expert or authority. That’s what got us into this situation in the first place. We need to learn how to trust ourselves again, how to think critically about things, how to obtain information like this. In this day and age, it is far easier than it ever was. There was a time when only the wealthy had access to texts in libraries.  Now we have the Internet like anyone with just  – even the poorest people have smart phones these days. That’s all you need to start doing some research and learning was going the world. So I think people need to start taking responsibility and trusting themselves again and taking charge of their own lives. This instead of just giving away every decision and every conclusion to some talking head on the TV or who has been appointed by some aristocrat or oligarch who does not have our interest in mind.

The Spanish Flu

On early on in this I was doing some research about the 1918 epidemic or pandemic, the Spanish flu but it’s not really from Spain is not really flu, but all that aside right there were reports of anywhere from ten to a hundred million deaths. Big numbers and a big discrepancy in the numbers. Nonetheless, I saw this interview of a woman who was a child that time and still survived. She recorded this interview talking about her experience. All she saw were people dropping dead around her. She said that the cemeteries were essentially full, and people had to very bodies in their yards and had neighbors going to help neighbors bury their family members. That’s what it’s like when you’re in a real pandemic.  If you didn’t have the TV, would you know anything is going on right now?

In my research I don’t know what the definitive cause was. I suspect there is more than one cause and might have been regional variation in addition.  I think one of the most fascinating and relevant scientific aspects of the 1918 pandemic was that the United States Public Health Service, which still exists today, funded a research group in Boston to study contagion of the Spanish Flu. They recruited 100 prisoners [I think military volunteers – MT] back then they had different rules about science ethics. They said if you participate in the study and you’re alive you’ll get it get a jail free card. That hundred healthy volunteers went to a ward where there all the Spanish patients. They did three experiments that involved sick people coughing up phlegm, sneezing or taking nasal swabs and tears. All the nasty secretions from sick people. In the first experiment they just put it in the mouth and nose and eyes and not one person got sick. In the second experiment they injected under the skin of the people, not one person got sick. In the third experiment they tried to mimic real life situations, like married couples. So they made them sit uncomfortably close together and one would breathe on the others and once again not one person got sick.

Bottom line: “Covid” is not contagious

So, this is one of the only well-done studies on contagion showing that there was zero contagion. They did one study for the Covid on this where someone was  an asymptomatic carrier (a meaningless term) but it means someone who tests positive but has the symptoms. They followed that person around for over 400 contacts with people who were negative. Not one of those people converted to a positive test. If you believe the test is reliable, well, there, you didn’t give it to over 400 people. You don’t need to take it any further. So, this thing about healthy people being locked down or having to wear masks – they can’t actually pass it to anybody even if it really exists. So, there’s no reason at all justify it.

54 thoughts on “A project gone awry: Transcribing a Kaufman interview”

  2. That’s really great Mark. Thanks.
    One line tickled me though : ” If you didn’t have the TV, would you know anything is going on right now?”
    Well I DO have a TV and I STILL don’t know what is going on right now. I only see and hear the propaganda they assault us with so not much difference there. then

    Like

    Reply

  3. I would also like to draw people’s attention to the original Covid sufferers in China. Remember those pictures from China of people dropping dead where they stood and others writhing about the floor ……………….just 6 months ago ? Obviously they realised how ridiculous it was all looking and they’ve toned it down a bit now
    Strange ‘disease ‘ this where symptoms widely vary from person to person. Most ‘diseases’ have a fairly standard profile . A cold, influenza, measles , chickenpox etc. etc. Mostly instantly recognizable.
    There’s no doubt in MY mind that it’s a complete and utter scam.
    Fear is the only killer here.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  4. I was forced to wear a mask to enter TSA check stations on my recent trip to Maine. No way to avoid it. “Opted out” of the machine scan, but forced to do the full-body “pat-down.” Long story short, I had to wear a mask to fly. On the plane one must eat and drink the imported goodies they hand out, so the game is “nurse it” as long as you can. Each flight attendant has their own threshold, as I discovered. The more they push you to cover, the more coffee I can drink. Stupid — who’s really in charge — games.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. That sucks! I’m sick and and tired of their mind games. It’s getting more ridiculous by the day.

      My husband and I got by just fine until now not wearing a mask in shops in our small 1000 citizen village.

      Today, however, we were told to wear a mask. We said “No” and left. We walked 3 miles to the next shop and as we were paying they told us “Next time you will have to wear a mask!” Obviously, there won’t be a next time.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  5. Best interview I’ve seen. Thanks for preserving. Mark. Sadly, they’re not going to let us go back, the psychological and real threats from our state puppets will keep on increasing at any sign of increased resistance or attenuation of trust in the “experts”. We will believe, by order.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    2. So I apparently have the software I need, as

      Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x86)

      • a newer version, is already on my computer. But I’m puzzled, so talk down to me if you must, how do I go to You Tube (or elsewhere) and invoke a download? This question has come up before.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I tried posting a short tutorial on how to use the tool a good half dozen times but it keeps ending up in nirvana, sometimes eliciting the message “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”

        As a workaround, you could contact me via the email address submitted in my post.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I get that duplicate comment stuff frequently … I have a way around it as a writer here … I merely edit the comment I am replying to and reply there. You don’t have that option, and I do not know how to fix it, as it is a WordPress glitch.

          Like

          Reply

  7. A while ago, I stumbled upon an open-source software for downloading videos, including YouTube videos, that was created by someone who calls himself Vishukani. His website is here: https://www.vishukani.net/

    The site doesn’t mention the software. I have it installed on my computer and it’s called Reel Downloader. I got it to work when I first downloaded it (you have to open a zip file and stuff), but for some reason, it’s not working now. I meant to tell you about it when I first downloaded it a few months ago, but it slipped my mind. On Vishukani’s website, he says he’s open to communication with folks interested in his stuff.

    (I tried to download it again from a site called Source Forge, but it tried to make me pay for a software to download zip files or something, so I said forget it. I have no idea where I first stumbled across the thing. But it DID download YT videos that I still have saved on my external drive, and I didn’t pay for it. Sorry I couldn’t give you a simpler, more direct solution.)

    Like

    Reply

  9. This Dr. Kaufman mixes many things together without proper explanations. for instance opportunistic infections only happen if your “immune system” gets disabled in the hospital by heavy chemicals. It never happens at home. It’s also called sepsis. It means that microorganisms like bacteria spread uncontrolled through the bloodstream because the control called “immune system” was disabled with chemicals. They do it regularly after surgeries. Cancer or not.
    I think the masks are a parallel project. They are medically useless which even the Corona main protagonists openly admit. It’s symbolic. They take away your freedom to breath and to speak freely. But only in public places, no? If you avoid anything public you don’t have to wear a mask.
    I have some new information about the tests and how they are really being done, at least in Germany, but I suppose the USA won’t be much different here. There are this “news” suggesting that they test people directly in their cars, that they cause pain putting something deep in your nose, etc. Nothing of it is true. In Germany they only test people with symptoms, they only take saliva samples from your mouth and the results come a week later and are always negative. That’s how it is done in reality. A few friends of us got tested and gave me the same stories. It makes sense because if you’d be positive a week after your test and nobody else near you got sick in between it wouldn’t look good for the tests, right?
    I recently read something in the paper with the title “1000 police officers fall ill on Covid” but in the text it only said “1000 police officers were positively tested for Corona”. That’s how the news work. You need to read carefully but it’s all there. I found this official paper:
    https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/eua-authorized-serology-test-performance
    It defines what sensitivity and specificity is as “ability to identify those with or without antibodies” but I know for sure, this are parameters which the laboratories have to adjust and not numbers they somehow calculate out of observations. Both terms are used to describe the accuracy of the Corona test but wrongly explained.
    The paper also admits: “We do not currently know the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive individuals in the U.S. population”. Interesting, no?
    And last but not least: they never look if a positive tested person really gets sick. Because as I described above sick persons are always tested negative in reality. Positive tests are always just faked in the news.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. I’m convinced infection does not exist at all. Then there is no need for a immune system, is it? Our bodies have the ability to repair damage to some extend. Bacteria are a part of us and no cause of sickness. They are always there and modify themselves when needed. When they disable chemically what they call “immune system”, they disable the control mechanisms which prevent bacteria to spread unnecessary and then bacteria spreads uncontrolled causing what they call sepsis. It’s like when you make wine. You give yeast sugar and it spreads until there is no more sugar to ferment. Then yeast falls asleep and stops working. It does not die. You can collect the yeast from the bottom and use it next time. You give to much sugar and the yeast produces alcohol until it cannot get rid of it anymore, which usually is by about 15-19% concentration and falls asleep again. You put some water in and it starts to work again. Imagine yeast in your bloodstream producing 15% alcohol because of to much sugar. You die, yeast survives. This is another of my main points. Disinfection does not kill germs. You can clean a wound with alcohol but it won’t kill any bacteria there. Rubbing alcohol on your hands makes nothing cleaner, is bad for skin and totally useless else. Alcohol is just a good solvent and good for cleaning.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  10. Wait a second, wait a second …

    … this is the same Andrew Kaufman who was disciplined for misappropriation of grant monies.

    Kaufman’s not a virologist. He’s a psychiatrist by training, but after being disgraced he began marketing himself as a “natural healing consultant, inventor, public speaker, forensic psychiatrist, and expert witness.”

    He teaches that any COVID vaccines are for the purpose of creating “genetically modified” human beings through electroporation and the insertion of foreign DNA into cells. This claim has been roundly debunked.

    This guy is almost as bad as Tom Cowan. Can’t they find (ex-)doctors who are not morally compromised to shill for this tOxIcItY pseudoscience? I get the feeling that these guys cut a deal to stay out of jail by joining the disinformation squad.

    Like

    Reply

      1. only very few bacteria can survive outside the bodies for some time and they denature immediately and become something different. Phags don’t infect bacteria, they are products of dying bacteria which is what happens when you keep bacteria in petri dishes. You further denature live when you mark it radioactively. What you then have is not what you took out of a living body. In the experiment they let bacteria die and produce phages and they then mixed the samples in a mixer and then centrifuged the cocktail. They had probes where the put radioactivity in to mark the bacteria and to mark the phages and got exactly the results they prepared. It’s called scam.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Barb just did. They basically used lunar module shaped viruses(bacteriophages), radioisotopes, and a feckin kitchen blender to prove that dna was the hereditary mechanism. The experiment was done at cold spring harbor(home of american eugenics movement). Max Delbrück had set up the phage group there to use viruses to confirm the existence of dna. Delbrück had inspired Schrodinger to write What is Life?. Schrodinger stated in that book that dna was a aperiodic crystal that would be the hereditary mechanism. Schrodinger was good at mechanisms of course seeing as he had given us quantum wave mechanics with his psi symbol. Story goes that book inspired the generation of particle chasers that gave us our modern so-called understanding of the genome.

          “What I discovered for myself at a very early stage is that as a scientist, you could potentially change the world to a far greater extent than Caesar or any of the great military or political figures ever did. And you can sit in a corner and relax while you’re about it.”
          -max delbrück

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    2. Here we go again … character assassination as a form of argumentation. I judge a man by the total content of his work, while you pick and choose those things that reflect badly on him. Could you withstand your own scrutinization methods?

      Like

      Reply

      1. In court, attorneys present evidence to undermine a witness’s credibility. This is not deemed character assassination. For both Cowan and Kaufman, I have presented our readers links to the evidence of their checkered pasts. Only the willfully ignorant would ignore the strange trajectory of Kaufman’s career and the curious timing of his switch from psychiatry to natural health consulting.

        I stand to gain nothing financially from pointing out the credibility issues of these ex-doctors. I do not know them personally and I have alleged nothing that is not in the public record. Character assassination is more a akin to the dark insinuations you make about me, on the basis of nothing whatsoever.

        As a psychiatrist, Kaufman would probably recognize an instance of projection when he saw one.

        Like

        Reply

        1. We’re not in a court room, and we are not lawyers. We are people wading through a morass of information and trying to piece it together. Your pot shots from the bushes are not helpful. You are seeking to discredit the men, thereby killing the messenger.

          Like

          Reply

        2. Long before Covid, it appears Kaufmann was publishing articles critical of the medical establishment even as he worked within it. To me, there is nothing particularly “strange” about the trajectory of his career. In fact, the background you provide makes me more inclined to think he is genuine. The information you provide is valuable, but the way you characterize it, the meaning and degree of importance you place on it, seems strange to me. I am far more put off by Cowan than Kaufmann, but the fact is, we are unlikely to get solid info about corruption within the medical community from people who have heretofore enjoyed successful unblemished careers in it. The info Cowan and Kaufmann bring ultimately must be judged on its own merits, and their personal and professional lives given an appropriate but not disproportionate level of importance.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Just curious, Scott … Which of the facts in my brief presentation did you find disproportionate?

            The fact that Kaufman is not actually an expert in a field about which he dispenses medical advice?
            The fact that he thinks that a vaccine can cause human beings to become Genetically Modified Organisms?
            Or,
            The fact that he has engaged in unethical financial dealings?

            Like

            Reply

            1. The fact that Kaufman is not actually an expert in a field about which he dispenses medical advice?

              He does not claim to be a virologist. In the presentations I’ve seen, he states clearly what his areas of expertise are, and the information you provided shows he doesn’t misrepresent himself. Are you saying that only virologists should question the facts presented by our government- and media-sanctioned experts?

              The fact that he thinks that a vaccine can cause human beings to become Genetically Modified Organisms?

              This goes to the content of his argument, not his background, and so is outside the scope of this discussion.

              The fact that he has engaged in unethical financial dealings?

              Oh, come on, he was a student who used left-over Amazon gift codes that rich pharmaceutical companies gave his university as incentives to get people to participate in research studies over 15 years. If, in your mind, this rises to the level of “unethical financial dealings,” I can only imagine what a low-life you’d think I was if you knew the shit I pulled when I was in school.

              Like

              Reply

              1. Maarten, I’ve been off the grid all day, but thinking about your tendencies here to go ad hominem. I would greatly appreciate it in the future if you would limit your comments on my threads to the content of the words by such men as Cowen and Kaufman. You’ve done nothing but denigrate them without tackling subject matter.

                All humans are flawed and make mistakes.
                Maarten is a human.
                Maarten is flawed and has made mistakes.
                Irrefutable.

                Like

                Reply

                1. Mark, you will have to spell out what you mean by an ad hominem argument, because I think you mean something different than what is normally understood.

                  When someone who claims to be a proponent of holistic healing modalities engages in practices that betray the canons of that paradigm, pointing it out is not an ad hominem attack. It speaks to the very core of their competency in the field that they claim expertise in.

                  Your monition to me has something of a “Do as I say and not as I do” quality to it. You have never shied away from impugning the character of public figures, and you are quite free with captious generalizations about Western medical personnel, public servants, and mainstream science practitioners. You made quite a reputation for yourself in the Montana blogosphere for your rough-and-tumble rhetoric. You have allowed some pretty nasty trolls to hang around POM. Now I am singled out? And for what? Not for unsubstantiated conjectures, but for stating items in the public record.

                  Let me say further that if you and others were not so invested in defending indefensible behavior, I would have made my point once and been done. It was your repeated efforts to minimize misdeeds that made occasion for me to circle back again and again to the specifics of misbehavior.

                  But since you ask for commentary on the content of Kaufman’s teaching, there is no need for me to re-invent that wheel. Here are links to extensive critiques (here and here). And here is an article that you might profit from yourself. It fleshes out the proper use of terms like “gold standard” and “exosomes.”

                  If you prefer videos, here’s one that really makes the case against Kaufman’s notions about virology, misinterpretations and manipulations of data. He is not a credible source of information.

                  And

                  I am indeed flawed and have made mistakes. To borrow a line from the shrift of another, I am “the chief of sinners,” because with my education and life experience, I should have spotted the impostures all around me in the Trutherverse more quickly than I did. I once was blind, but now I see.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  1. Since you are the chief of sinners, you are discredited and we should listen to nothing you say.

                    By the way, who is the voice behind Another Perspective? Corbett Report does a good job on this cottage industry of “fact checkers” who are nothing of the sort, just professional debunkers as we saw so oftne after 911. Have you done your usual due diligence in running down this person and his cv and criminal record to see if he ever shoplifted, then amplifying shoplifting to the despicable level? What you are doing here almost smacks of a professional hit job, and I am curious too about your comment about me in the Montana blogosphere ten years ago. All those blogs are now dead save a three run by professional Democrats and Skink. Where did you get that background? You’re making me very curious … about you, and yes, I’ve had these thoughts about you before. In the past I’ve merely set my suspicions aside and relegated your behavior to pain-in-the-ass devil’s advocacy, but up until now when you have just run (uncritically, I might add) the two videos above, you’ve been nothing but a hit man.

                    Another Perspective is saying that the RT-qPCR is deadly accurate. It is not. David Crowe demonstrated right off the bat that it was returning false positives and negatives in Wuhan. A Chinese paper (suppressed, but which I have in print), found that in asymptomatic people, the false positive rate was as high as 80%. Even more troubling, in symptomatic people, teh false positive rate was 40%! Yet you bring us Another Perspective, who is claiming 100% accuracy and who is fatally flawed because he does not address the sloppy work around the supposed isolation of the virus. Kaufman is right that back in the 1930s virology went off the rails when it abandoned Koch’s Postulates and came up with the fanciful notion of the asymptomatic carrier of viruses. You are aware that without that concept, virology in dead in the water. Thomas Rivers of the Rockefeller Foundation rescued its sorry ass.

                    Don’t forget President John Magufuli of Tanzania, who demonstrated that sheep, goats and pawpaws also carry SARs-Cov-2. Isn’t it funny how such startling evidence barely rises above the horizon and is ignored by all media, scientists and people advancing the scam.

                    And yes, it is a scam, and Another Perspective is advancing the scam. It is the largest scam I have ever witnessed, and I was around for the Cold War, JFK, the moon, Jonestown, Columbine, 911 and AIDS. it is quite easy to expose: 1) The initial lock downs coincided with the advent of 5G in outer space, the launching of thousands of satellites by SpaceX, Lynx, even Facebook and others. I find that curious. 2) It also piggybacked on annual cold and flu season, with the CDC prohibiting autopsies and 3) changing the way we do death certificates. When C&F season ended, the media seamlessly eased from reporting deaths mis-attributed to Covid-19 to “testing positive.” 4) The remedies for the pandemic, lock downs, six feet and face masks make no sense and must have been imposed for other reasons having more to do with open (as opposed to velvet glove) fascism. 5) CDC, or honest people therein, recently recanted, admitting that actual Covid-19 deaths in the US are less than 10,000. The professional swines in that outfit quickly moved to bury the honest voices, now claiming the death toll at 200,000.

                    I’ve got the real number of Covid-19 deaths here in this stack of papers I’ve been accumulating these past months. Give me a bit of time … shuffling, shuffling … aha! Got it! Here is is. Zero.

                    So OK, attack dog. It’s on you now. Here a bone for you: Find for us evidence that asymptomatic carriers exist and are dangerous. Find for us the evidence that the supposed virus is contagious for 14 days, that is, the scientific papers that established that number. Not 13, not 15. 14. That is the basis for inhumane quarantining of healthy people. Justify it! Do the same for the six feet distancing imposed on everyone. And finally, pawpaw, give us the scientific studies justifying healthy zombies wearing face masks.

                    Kaufman in his presentation above does an excellent job of presenting his views. You avoid the meat of his presentation, instead reducing it all to exosomes, your usual MO, bypassing everything and looking for one weakness and seizing on it, a professional hit man strategy.

                    Good day, chief of sinners.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

                  2. Please do not forget that Kary Mullis’s PCR set free the innocent man who did not rape my daughter, yielding him $3.5 million for malicious prosecution and exposing my ex-wife as having sat in silence for 14 years knowing of his innocence. PCR also tagged the real culprit. Our legal system could only imprison an innocent man and let a guilty man go, but PCR, a remarkable invention, did its job.

                    But as Mullis said when they were misusing his invention to find HIV, it is not useful in detecting disease. In fact, for that use, it is science fraud.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

              2. @ScottRC

                Long before Covid, it appears Kaufmann was publishing articles critical of the medical establishment even as he worked within it.

                Please supply links for this claim. I have not seen anything in his own listing of his publication record that supports this, and so I would be interested in knowing what you know.

                [Kaufman] does not claim to be a virologist.

                True. He claims to be a “natural healing consultant.” What is his training for that? His résumé is quite detailed. But he says nothing about time in a Doctor of Naturopathy program. So he seems to be untrained in the very thing he claims to be. But if this is incorrect, someone correct me.

                He was a professor of Psychiatry until 2015 and continued after that working in mainstream psychiatry as an entrepreneur at Zinnia Safety Systems. His rise to fame as a natural healing consultant is, in a word, meteoric. What accomplishments merit his standing as one of the foremost alternative health experts?

                If we saw such a career arc in a musician, actor, sportsman, or politician, we in these circles we readily agree that such a person had been “promoted” by the hidden powers. For some reason it is an ad hominem argument to make the same observation about Dr. Kaufman.

                In all fairness, a grad or post-grad student …

                In fairness, he was around 35 years old at the time, and had the title of “Doctor.” This was not the youthful indiscretion that you frame it as.

                … Cowan’s disgraceful misconduct.

                Thank you for saying what everyone should readily stipulate to.

                Like

                Reply

                1. Please supply links for this claim.

                  https://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/article_abstract.php?pid=14&iid=520&aid=3657

                  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20628901/

                  (I got these titles from the link you gave to his website. I don’t know how to hyperlink in this comment section.)

                  His rise to fame as a natural healing consultant is, in a word, meteoric.

                  Was he a famous natural healing consultant? I never heard of him before. If he was on national TV shows and clearly promoted as part of the MSM for his natural healing work, I’ll go along with your suspicions.

                  In fairness, he was around 35 years old at the time, and had the title of “Doctor.” This was not the youthful indiscretion that you frame it as.

                  It was a stupid thing to do. But he made restitution, served his probation, and received his resident’s training license from Duke University. The way Big Pharma lavishes gifts on psychiatrists, I do not think the sense of entitlement that led him to use unused, left-over Amazon gift codes that were provided by Big Pharma is nearly as damning as you make it out to be. I know a psychiatrist who has told me about the gifts and expensive lunches pharmaceutical company reps regularly lavish upon people in the profession. I can absolutely see how, even at 35 years old, he might have thought it would not be a big deal. He was wrong. He fucked up. He was penalized but completed his work at Duke in good standing. The way you demonize him for this mistake makes it seem like you are reaching.

                  I haven’t made my mind up about the guy. There may be something to your suspicions about his switch to natural healing practice. And I’m curious how you’ll support the claim that this switch led to a “meteoric rise.” But your hyperbolic condemnatory language (“unethical financial dealings” to describe using $25 gift codes left-over from a completed Big Pharma study) makes you sound like you’re reaching, that’s all.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  1. Scott, watch the first video I linked in the response to Mark above. (At 1.5x speed it goes quickly yet comprehensibly.) It outlines just how out of his depth Kaufman is on the COVID subject. A guy with his education has to know that he is fudging facts in his presentations.

                    And … those articles you linked are no more “critical of the establishment” than the usual professional journal fare. He was working firmly within the mainstream paradigm of his training until recently. Why the sudden switch to natural healing, and where is the tale of his conversion? He just burst on the scene out of nowhere as a leading naturopath and COVID denialist. How did that happen? Why do all these outlets want to interview HIM on their YouTube channels? He has published nothing and does no research that we know of. Why is he considered an expert?

                    When Barack Obama burst on the scene as a presidential contender after only two years in the Senate, even normies questioned his meteoric rise. He at least had a race-card to play. When Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize just after being elected, the whole world knew that he was being promoted by hidden hands beyond any merit. What is Andrew Russell Kaufman famous for, except for being famous? So who is pushing him forward and why?

                    These are exactly the kinds of questions we ask regularly here at POM, and no one sneezes at such a line of questioning. Why should a COVID denialist be immune from scrutiny here? That’s the second mystery I am pondering today ….

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

                    1. Maarten, here’s something else we regularly have to contend with here at POM: most of the information we get that isn’t from the mainstream is from controlled opposition. It seems pointless to worry overmuch about whether a source of information is “trustworthy” and “sincere” or is controlled opposition. Trustworthy and sincere sources often don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, which can make their information the exact same level of worthless as disinfo agents’ lies.

                      Here at POM, we understand that in order to gain an audience, controlled opposition must provide some nuggets of truth. So we search for those nuggets in the vast landscape of sincere and insincere garbage.

                      I’m interested in your disagreement with the content of Kaufman’s presentations. In the few arguments you’ve made against things he’s saying right now, you’ve given me a lot to think about. That kind of discussion is the main reason I come here. Concerns about his educational background, experience, motives, and reliability are valuable up to a point if they supplement your arguments about the information he presents. But you’re doing exactly the reverse.

                      If I stipulate, or if Mark stipulates, that yeah, the dude is probably controlled opposition because, Jesus, who the fuck isn’t, can you then focus on your problems with what he’s saying? It seems to me that your attack on the man himself is a sideways attack on Mark for posting about him at all. Mark is focused on the information he’s presenting and you’re saying forget about all that because he’s disinfo. Okay, he’s disinfo. Happy? Are there any nuggets in the information that you find worthwhile, or is everyone who listens to anything he says just a gibbering fool?

                      Like

                    4. Maarten, the video you linked to in response to me is fatally flawed. It makes no mention of the sloppy work done by virologists in Wuhan and thereafter, adequately exposed by David Crowe and Chinese mathematicians.

                      I find it very interesting that a virus that has not been isolated, and for which there is no gold standard, can be studied in depth by the anonymous “Another Perspective.” You’ve been challenged up above by this “Covid Denier” (interesting you use that propagandist phrase) to present evidence of the science behind isolation of the virus, the 14 day quarantine, masks, the existence of asymptomatic carriers and the fact that they are dangerous. I suggest you get on it. Your time is short.

                      Note that I did not, as you do, reduce everything to one isolated point. You’ve a host of things to lay into. Get going.

                      Like

    3. In all fairness, a grad or post-grad student using unused Amazon gift codes Big Pharma gave out as incentives for people to participate in university research studies does not come anywhere close to the level of Cowan’s disgraceful misconduct. And it was, what, 15 years ago? Furthermore, Kaufmann’s educational background–which includes the study of molecular biology, medicine and psychology–qualify him to talk about what’s up with Covid with at least some degree of authority. I’m still not over the fact that he shares a name with a comedian known for hoaxes though.

      Like

      Reply

    4. The problem is that much of ‘accepted ‘science IS pseudo science .
      Personally I don’t go along with all Kaufman says but much of it sounds reasonable to me. We all make mistakes in life which is a big mistake in itself because once you’ve crossed that line, EVERYTHING you say is suspect……………….to some people. A bit like, if the name sounds vaguely Jewish, cover your ears!

      Like

      Reply

    5. Claiming that viruses are not contagious is not disinformation, as it is basic human biology at grade 5 level.
      If we mistreat ourselves with toxins, the wisdom of the human body to take itself into damage control will produce disabling symptoms and serves to halt, rest and heal.
      The virome serves as a means of self-disinfection after the devastating actions of the microbiome upon the toxic event.
      We heal ourselves, and it is often difficult and painful, depending on the degree of toxicity.
      There is no external threat of pathogens. Big myth.

      Like

      Reply

    6. Can you provide links to where I can read about this checkered past of Dr. Tom Cowan? I’ve respected him so much over the years but lately am concerned he’s controlled opposition for various reasons. Thank you.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I think it wise to be on your own, research and think for yourself. If using a search engine, I suggest DuckDuckGo, as it is not as heavily censored are are Yahoo, Google, Bing.

        Like

        Reply

  11. There’re only 21 comments here on display and the comment section title says there should’ve been 39 of them. Is that some new feature in action, comment redaction without any explanation about wtf is going on?

    Btw, the fact I’m the only banned commenter around here saddens me. Just what did I say or do that made ya silence me? Talk about unpleasant issues? Being direct about it? Come on, Mark. That’s not yr style, cowardly ducking any discussion by silencing the audience.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The comments are restored and the reason for their being taken down explained in a post above.

      I had forgotten all about you, so you’re being banned, which was only meant to be temporary, became permanent. I don’t even know why I did that. Apologies.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment