Cowan and Kaufman, C+K = 33?

Mike Wallach, proprietor of The Viral Delusion, runs a nice website and I am happy to send along a few bucks each month. However, back in July he ran a video, The Viral Delusion Episode Three: Monkey Business: Polio, Measles And How It All Began,  and right away, just a couple of minutes into it, I was looking up at the nose hairs of Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman. The latter for sure I do not trust, as someone pointed out to me long ago that Edward Snowden, then said to be quarantined in an airport in Moscow, and Mr. Kaufman bore a striking resemblance to one another.

No way, I thought, but decided to expend the effort to do the comparisons anyway. For newbies, my underlying criteria is based on the premise that our heads form their final for-life shape in our late teens and early 20s, and that as a result, the distance between our eye pupils can be used as a constant throughout our lives. That in mind, if I align eye pupils at a common distance, I can compare two faces to find differences and similarities.

Here’s Kaufman, then bearded and bald, now long-haired, no wait, now a again handsome bearded man. His appearance changes from day to day … a changeling?

Are you seeing it? Me neither. Still, I went ahead and did the face chop:

I did not expect that! It is rare that two people line up so well. Again for newbies, we maintain a database here that I call “Bokanovsky Brats,” after the “Bokanovsky Process” described in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World . In that book, human eggs were fertilized and then split, creating as many as 96 replicas of the same person. In BNW such replicas were used for mindless chores, like janitorial, but as I see it, Brats fulfill a much larger role in our current world, called out to perform specific tasks at various times. Many are actors, like Jack Nicholson and Matt Damon, others are in politics, like California governor Gavin Newsom. Others still have performed the acting job as serial killer, as in Jeffrey Dahmer, the spitting image of Nicholson on close review. See https://pieceofmindful.com/2021/04/02/jeffrey-dahmer-rip/

Well, Kaufman appears to be a brat, though I cannot classify him beyond himself as his own category, though he and Snowden, for sure different people, share the same facial plates. And, the same sinister eyes. With Kaufman, I felt as if the abyss was staring back at me.

Back to The Viral Delusion video, as soon as Kaufman and Cowan were in my face, I turned it off. I went to the end and commented as follows:

“The video begins with presentations from Cowan and Kaufman, and for me, ends right there. These two were trotted out at the beginning of the Covid business. I come from a school of thought that was succinctly described by Vladimir Lenin, that the best way to control opposition was to “lead it ourselves.” False leaders usually insinuate themselves at the beginning of fake affairs, their job to keep followers in bounds, but eventually to lead them over a cliff. That in mind, I realized that if I was going to understand Covid itself (a scare campaign designed to create a stampede to an already-devised vaccine), I was on my own, and had to exercise my brain in the only way never taught in schools, to classify, make inferences, reason, and practice, practice, practice. Our best teachers are not the likes of C and K, but our own mistakes in trusting and following. Instead, our own brains are all we have. Not theirs.”

I got a comment back from Sherry:

“On the contrary, it wasn’t Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman who were put at the forefront of the Covid scam. It was doctors like Peter McCollugh and Robert Malone who were put in place as controlled opposition and hyped by the mainstream media. Tom and Andy both gave up their medical licenses so they wouldn’t be under the thumb of the AMA, CDC, FDA etc. They not only talked the talk but they walked the walk. They gave up their livelihoods in order to freely speak the truth. Yes, I knew Covid was a scam before I found these 2 doctors (and others) so I used my own discernment. These two, along with others like the Baileys and Amandha Vollmer have been sensored for speaking the truth that there are no viruses. They confirmed for me and explained technically/scientifically why Covid was a hoax…just another psyop. For that, I’m eternally grateful!”

I let it go, but the comment bugged me. I was uncertain why, but as I sit down and write, sometimes, only sometimes, the answer becomes apparent. I responded again last evening, as follows:

“Your comment has been rolling around in my head … something is off in it, as I view it. I don’t mean to disrespect you as you search for answers, but only offer my viewpoint on Cowan and Kaufman … I don’t follow them. I don’t follow anyone. You don’t need to, as you have the wherewithal in you to sort through things, read and reason and connect dots without experts. That’s what it is … the two, C and K, established themselves right away as experts, men to be followed. I’ve done enough of that in my life … I used to think Noam Chomsky’s thoughts instead of my own. He led me down a garden path and I learned, don’t follow. Be my own expert.

Then I had a revelation, a minor brain fart, as we had been discussing the matter of the significance of the letters C and K in the recent Charlie Kirk (fake) assassination:

And there I’ll let it rest, me on the right side of a limb with a saw in my left hand. (MM, 13th letter of the alphabet, becomes 1313, or rearranged, 11 33, but let’s not go there. 

46 thoughts on “Cowan and Kaufman, C+K = 33?”

  1. HERE IS THE CORRECTED VERSION OF THAT COMMENT SINCE IT’S NOT POSSIBLE TO EDIT

    My Comment (with corrections added from what got posted to this blog).

    For what it’s worth, I am a journalist and know both of these guys personally; and while this is not exactly an endorsement, you’re unlikely to hear from other people who have known them and tracked their work in the long run. 

    We (my reporting team at my nonprofit organization Chiron Return) have looked into their medical and research backgrounds long prior to covid, and they check out as real people with legit careers outside of the public eye, and do not show up as props or setups. 

    While I have mixed feelings about them, both have made significant contribution to public awareness in the early days of the 2020 crisis. They are not at the forefront of anything as you seem to suggest — and their position differ from other major presenters in that they are not lying about the existence of viruses nor the existence of the bogus “lab leak.” In early 2021 Cowan confirmed to me in an in-person discussion that he expected the “lab leak” to become the patsy.

    All the other prominent doctors (Malone, McCollough, Breggin, Tenpenny, and many others) repeat the lab leak canard and endorse the pandemic scenario.

    I’m in a position to verify their scientific views (which I have done extensively), and they check out. While neither goes into granular detail (for example on the history of virology, which is where the real problem resides), on the whole they are correct in their views, particularly on the problems with virology and its failure to produce valid scientific or clinical results.

    That said, I would like to clarify some facts to anyone who may imagine they seemed to appear out of nowhere and therefore speak for someone besides themselves. They are both ornery, stubbornly independent men. 

    I was in the room when they met for the first time at an event at about 10 am on Dec. 15, 2020. I’ve met them many times since. 

    They were not “trotted out.” They started independently, and caught traction by being medical doctors who were willing to speak up against the prevailing narrative. Tom Cowan made some offhand comments at the end of a talk on another topic on March 12, 2020. Those comments were excerpted and, to Tom’s surprise, went viral days later.

    Andy Kaufman, predominantly a psychiatrist with voluminous scientific knowledge (talk to him and he seems like he’s read every scientific paper ever written) issues his first solo video about covid on March 31, 2020, titled “Humanity is Not a Virus,” though he told me he had previously made an appearance on Crrow777 Radio. David Icke re-posted that Crrow777 video and it got about a million views — and as a result Ike’s YouTube was canceled. 

    So they were not “trotted out.” They were aware of one another though they finally meet at an event at Arklight in Ghent, New York on Dec. 15, 2020, speaking in a home environment (large community house in rural upstate NY) to a group of about 100-130 people. I was the recording technician at that event. 

    In contrast with what we would learn the following year, I thought their comments were tentative; they were not committed to the nonexistence of viruses; and they were growing aware of the important work of Dr Stefan Lanka in Germany, which proves the cytopathic effect happens without the presence of viruses.

    Said another way, I have personally tracked the evolution of their intellectual process on viruses, and while it has developed over time, their position has been consistent based on the best available evidence. Feel free to do their numerology all you want; I am an astrologer who does forensic work on major news events, and I can assure you that while numeology is interesting it’s not proof of anything special. But have fun, and btw I heard that Kaufman is a cousin of Billy Shears and that Cowan actually wrote the whole Wings catalog. 

    Also Jewish guys don’t usually get to be 33rd Degree Masons but a boy can dream.

    Here is that Dec. 15, 2025 workshop

    https://planetwaves.fm/full-day-workshop-with-dr-thomas-cowan-and-dr-andrew-kaufman/

    Here is my source of dates (I am the author)

    https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/covid-chronology-5.4.1.pdf

    Like

    Reply

  2. Some days you eat the bear, some days it eat you – I think that is from Gardens of Stone, the movie.

    I’ll have to allow you to wait for the bear to get the rest of his meal tomorrow as there is much to digest. I spoke very little of Cowan, mostly Kaufman who is fingernails on chalkboard to me.

    Like

    Reply

  4. It’s SO nice to see you calling out Cowan and Kaufman!! I have to admit that I’ve never seen or heard anything by Cowan, because I heard Kaufman first and knew that anyone who’d publicly associate themselves with him was made of the same stuff and I wasn’t buying it. I agree with everything you’ve said about the two of them, including the blatant 33.

    I once saw a video, when Kaufman had just popped up on the scene at some point during ‘Covid’, in which he said some of the most outlandish things I’ve ever heard. In that video he talked about STDs and said that they come from a “lack of collagen in the body” and that one of the things we can do about a “lack of collagen” would be to “eat the parts of animals that contain a lot of it, SUCH AS PIGS ‘ KNEES.” He named other animal sources of collagen, but by that point I’d stopped listening. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry!

    At this point I should add that for reasons that are way too long to explain here, my late husband was a victim of the “HIV” fraud. He died. Ever since then, I pay extremely close attention and can usually spot a quack from a mile away. I consider Kaufman to be a quack of the highest (lowest?) order, besides being cont opp. I personally believe that the “no viruses” and “no contagion” can best be described as a discredit by association psyop. I won’t say any more because you’ve already said everything so well. Sorry for the super long comment!! Ciao!! 🙂

    Like

    Reply

    1. For what it’s worth, I am a journalist and know both of these guys personally; and while this is not exactly an endorsement, you’re unlikely to hear from other people who have known them and tracked their work in the long run. 

      We (my reporting team at my nonprofit organization Chiron Return) have looked into their medical and research backgrounds long prior to covid, and they check out as real people with legit careers outside of the public eye, and do not show up as props or setups. 

      While I have mixed feelings about them, both have made significant contribution to public awareness in the early days of the 2020 crisis. They are not at the forefront of anything as you seem to suggest — and their position differ from other major presenters in that they are not lying about the existence of viruses nor the existence of the bogus “lab leak.” In early 2021 Cowan confirmed to me in an in-person discussion that he expected the “lab leak” to become the patsy.

      All the other prominent doctors (Malone, McCollough, Breggin, Tenpenny, and many others) repeat the lab leak canard and endorse the pandemic scenario.

      I’m in a position to verify their scientific views (which I have done extensively), and they check out. While neither goes into granular detail (for example on the history of virology, which is where the real problem resides), on the whole they are correct in their views, particularly on the problems with virology and its failure to produce valid scientific or clinical results.

      That said, I would like to clarify some facts to anyone who may imagine they seemed to appear out of nowhere and therefore speak for someone besides themselves. They are both ornery, stubbornly independent men. 

      I was in the room when they met for the first time at an event at about 10 am on Dec. 15, 2020. I’ve met them many times since. 

      They were not “trotted out.” They started independently, and caught traction by being medical doctors who were willing to speak up against the prevailing narrative. Tom Cowan made some offhand comments at the end of a talk on another topic on March 12, 2020. Those comments were excerpted and, to Tom’s surprise, went viral days later.

      Andy Kaufman, predominantly a psychiatrist with voluminous scientific knowledge (talk to him and he seems like he’s read every scientific paper ever written) issues his first solo video about covid on March 31, 2020, titled “Humanity is Not a Virus,” though he told me he had previously made an appearance on Crrow777 Radio. David Icke re-posted that Crrow777 video and it got about a million views — and as a result Ike’s YouTube was canceled. 

      So they were not “trotted out.” They were aware of one another though they finally meet at an event at Arklight in Ghent, New York on Dec. 15, 2020, speaking in a home environment (large community house in rural upstate NY) to a group of about 100-130 people. I was the recording technician at that event. 

      In contrast with what we would learn the following year, I thought their comments were tentative; they were not committed to the nonexistence of viruses; and they were growing aware of the important work of Dr Stefan Lanka in Germany, which proves the cytopathic effect happens without the presence of viruses.

      Said another way, I have personally tracked the evolution of their intellectual process on viruses, and while it has developed over time, their position has been consistent based on the best available evidence. Feel free to do their numerology all you want; I am an astrologer who does forensic work on major news events, and I can assure you that while numeology is interesting it’s not proof of anything special. But have fun, and btw I heard that Kaufman is a cousin of Billy Shears and that Cowan actually wrote the whole Wings catalog. 

      Also Jewish guys don’t usually get to be 33rd Degree Masons but a boy can dream.

      Here is that Dec. 15, 2025 workshop

      https://planetwaves.fm/full-day-workshop-with-dr-thomas-cowan-and-dr-andrew-kaufman/

      Here is my source of dates (I am the author)

      https://audio.pwfm.tech/documents/covid-chronology-5.4.1.pdf

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Journalist” doesn’t usually get anyone through the door here, but that’s another subject. I’ve long been a critic of the profession.

        I do not think of numerology as proof of anything, never have. It is merely evidence, and light evidence at that. Yes, sometimes it can be blatant, as with Charlie Kirk or JFK 11/22 first shot 12:30) or, you know, dates like 911 or Columbine declared ended at 3:30 PM, hard to ignore. But never proof!

        This post came about because of the exchange I had, no numerology, but merely tired of C&K being hauled to the foreground everywhere I turn. That’s how it works with controlled opposition, always grabbing the lead. I long ago removed both from my blogroll, and have noted that each gave up a medical license, kind of a necessity to prove martyrdom, but for me, not convincing.

        You overlooked the Kaufman/Snowden facial comparison, something I am quite schooled in. That kind of matchup is rare, usually happening only among celebrities, as with, say Charlie Sheen and Pierce Brosnan, easily distinguished but virtually identical. Same with Snowden/Kaufman. I think I explained the Bokanovsky angle above, won’t do it again. I never believed that Snowden was real or living in an airport. Did any journalist ever see through that ruse? My only question is whether they are really that blind, or trained to be so by their creed of objectivity.

        And your last sentence … Jews never reaching 33rd degree. That right there is a faith-blocker. It is not 1950 anymore, and anyway, I’ve long believed antisemitism to be an illusory defect, as Jews are too prominent, too smart, too well educated, to be sluffed off in the manner of lower class citizens.

        I have no doubt the pandemic has been in the works for years, only waiting on development of the vaccine to launch. As such, all things are planned for, including the notion of asymptomatic carrier and use of PCR as a substitute for an actual virus. That in mind, they cannot have overlooked the need for controlled opposition, Kaufman for sure, Cowan probably. In my view.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Cowan and Kaufman are quite good at what they do. And if they were truly dangerous we would not know about them, they would be suppressed completely. I believe it was Cowan who I binge watched about a year ago, and he was saying DNA is a hoax, and making a hash of biochemistry in general.

          Like

          Reply

  5. Kaufman was instrumental in covering up the massive increase in deaths shown in the official records in 2020, which I documented here: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2025/3/24/what-a-top-no-virus-leader-was-saying-about-us-deaths-in-2020

    So was Cowan, who told people any excess deaths in Spring 2020 were “easily explained” by the “data and evidence” — 11 times in a single show, which contained no data or evidence whatsoever. https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2024/2/17/us-democide-coverup-sneaks-into-lab-leak-discussion-with-tom-cowan-and-michael-bryant

    Like

    Reply

    1. Are any of my comments missing?

      One of my reporters says so

      Eric F. Coppolino Senior Producer – Investigations Pacifica Radio – Planet Waves FM, Kingston (845) 337-5095 – cell

      >

      Like

      Reply

      1. If you are asking about my articles, I have not removed any comments. As far as I recall I have never removed a comment in the entire history of my blog. Let’s have a talk with your reporter.

        Like

        Reply

  6. This article wasn’t up very long yet already has spooks commenting. Usually it takes a day or two for the comments to pile in.

    I remember C and K as both Covid Celebrities. They became overnight sensations, never heard of them before. Just like many other names that became popular during that timeframe, including BLM and Antifa events, it was like they were all ready to go waiting for their schticks to be released. The first meme I remember was the funny redo on The Knacks “My Sharona” remade into “My Corona”, and the weird televangelist Kenneth Copeland’s “Covid 19” speech.

    Like

    Reply

  7. Re Collagen, pigs’ feet, etc

    I’ve never heard this being promoted for STDs, but Jennifer Daniels often recommends it for maintaining muscle and joints, that sort of thing. It makes a lot of intuitive sense the way she explains it. The idea is that it’s more difficult for the body to “assemble” that kind of critical material from a variety of sources, such as lean meats, vegetables, or whatever – which contain only small amounts of the components anyway – than it is to get everything it needs in one go from such meat sources. According to her, “protein” alone doesn’t get the job done for muscle mass, which we lose as we age. I unfortunately have never made the effort to regularly eat such cuts, which have a bit of a learning curve to get started with. The first batches can be a struggle until you learn the right prep tricks. Ham hocks are pretty easy though, and similar benefit. She would say avoid the smoked ones though.

    Like

    Reply

    2. Looking over my dietary habits, state of health, and personal preferences, my day consists of ingestion of saturated fats three meals, along with protein but that is not an objective. I snack on cashews during the day, but avoid bread except that that is fiber-based. I love chocolate, and so have two Lindnor truffles each day, always wanting more. I sip on sparkling water, often that infused with artificial sugars, but never more than one bottle daily. And coffee, early in the day, and around 5pm decaf. Love coffee. Can’t do the collagen, will not be boiling bones anytime soon, though i do make a thick soup that has two quarts of beef stock, store bought.

      I am 75, rarely been ill, and if so usually sniffles and coughs and sneezes, indicating detox. My joints typically ache, but not to the point where I cannot do the necessary work to maintain this place. As I write this I am soon to go to the gym for a Monday workout that consists of treadmill, lower back stretches, pushups and sit-ups, and pull-ups. Tomorrow I lift weights, Wednesday is Stairmaster, Thursday swim, Friday an assortment of machines at the gym just for shit’s sake. Once weekly I go on a long bike ride, and we hike too, though not much lately as my wife has been recovering from minor surgery. When I I die I will be fit. I don’t smoke or drink, though I wish I could drink. I am just one of those weak souls who cannot manage it well.

      I’m going to die someday, don’t know of what. It doesn’t scare me. I don’t know what happens after that, but probably nothing. I’ve had a life that has taken me from isolated and stupid, cocky for no good reason, through trauma that has opened me up to acceptance of my own fallibility and the intelligence of others, usually away from this blog not terribly well exercised. I see people as controlled by images and “news”. Too bad.

      It reminds me of a movie I saw as a kid, Journey to the Center of the Earth, where a party entered the depths of the planet and found a series of caves, but got lost, and worse yet, their lanterns were running out of fuel. They were doomed, they thought, as when the lanterns went dark they would be consumed by the darkness. Instead, phosphors in the cave walls illuminated everything around them, and they found their way out and survived. That’s how I view “news.” Turn it off, the world will light up.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Just throwing it out there.. like I said, I haven’t managed to regularly eat those kinds of cuts myself. Many people have that reaction, no interest in those soul foods or “poor person meats.” Just to clarify, she’s not talking about bone broth or anything, this is meat/ cartilaginous tissue that melts off any bones. Usually very yummy simmered for hours with a bunch of greens etc .

        Like

        Reply

        1. Is this like collagen? My wife takes it, I think, and it seems to be a girl thing, like, you know, those packets of powder they take that are supposed to help with immunity. The powder version of face masks I suppose.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Yes, I guess it is or becomes collagen.. also used in connective tissue of joints, and building or maintaining muscle. Very critical for fitness and health, would help with things like your hiking interest I’m sure. But yes it is also promoted to women as a beauty aid since it improves things like skin elasticity/ youthfulness. Your wife might be interested in Daniels approach though since she claims it is much more effective via food sources than in supplement form.

            Like

            Reply

            1. It reminds me of the cholesterol affair, the fact that in some people it forms in the arteries, therefore the logical , conclusion, cholesterol is bad for us! Stop eating eggs.

              Eggs have long since been decriminalized, but the idea that something found in our bodies can be replicated in our bodies by merely ingesting that something oversimplifies the organism. I don’t take supplements because I think the body manages to extract all that is necessary for health out of an ordinary diet, meat with its saturated fat, a vegetable now and then including lettuce without getting carried away, and yes, though I rarely partake, occasional fruit. Lately we’ve had strawberries, peaches and blueberries, only because they are tasty.

              I don’t even bother with vitamin C. I am in excellent health and I know, knock on wood and I could be wrong about things. Stay humble, be the humblest person you can be.

              Like

              Reply

  8. My take on the eggs and cholesterol issue would be that eggs are indeed a very good source of cholesterol, but that the body isn’t obligated to use them to clog the arteries, so to speak.. So the old conventional view was wrong because it assumed the body didn’t have discretion, to get rid of it or use it for something else. But if it did want cholesterol for something, then eggs would be a fairly direct “salvage” path, as Ray termed it, vs de novo assembling it from various sources. The same way a builder might prefer a bunch of bricks, rather than having to make the bricks himself. Or vegetarians trying to get all the nutrients in meat, by multiple indirect sources. That way you might have shortages of some things, “supply chain issues,” and the body struggles as best it can to make due with what’s available, instead of having all components, in the proper amount.

    Like

    Reply

    1. A great example of something we must obtain by a salvage pathway are essential fatty acids. This is something I learned in my days of endocannabinoid research. One of the first things you learn in organic chemistry is making carbon-carbon bonds is hard, takes a lot of energy. But they are very stable. So you need a vast supply of these essential fatty acids to maintain integrity of your cell membranes. Raw fish are a good source of these – not cooked!

      Essential fatty acid – Wikipedia

      Like

      Reply

  9. So, a little face-splitting and numerology insinuations are all it takes to turn C&K into bad guys, and to blackwash the video?  That’s some terrific science for sure, and inspired by Lenin, no less.  Case closed, I guess, just like with the rock solid proofs of virus given us for the past 120 years.

    This video (The Viral Delusion Episode Three: Monkey Business: Polio, Measles And How It All Began) is one of the best and simplest breakdowns of the virus fraud I have seen.  And besides those bad guys C&K, we have many others (Jim West, Stefan Lanka, etc.) clearly fitting in many other important puzzle pieces to complete this picture of deception.  Very well done.

    In a comment on the Dahmer paper, Minime makes reference to Mathis’ paper “Terrain theory is a psyop”.  Previous to that paper, and while Josh was still part of the discussion at CTTF, Mathis labelled me a flat earther for some of my detailing of virus “science”, so of course all of the Mathis acolytes on the forum needed to bow down in obedience to that decree. 

    One of the finer points in his paper wherein Mathis falls flat on his face, is in reference to Dawn Lester’s book.  He makes fun of a picture she included, a picture of an African child suffering from smallpox (according to the mainstream viral narrative).  Lester says the picture actually illustrates the effects of toxicity, perhaps a gold mining effect, so Mathis proceeds to laugh at that….a little research (what he’s famous for, right?) into artisinal gold mining (and other mining practices there), and the toxic materials used, tell a more compelling story than Mathis’ fake virus story.  So why is Mathis trying to sell germs?

    Very interesting article on DNA posted by Minime.  Descriptions of its “discovery”, leading to past and current understanding and use, look and smell just like virus pseudoscience.  What’s that agenda all about, beyond creating unlimited viruses and variants of same, and so on and so on….

    Like

    Reply

    1. It is not, of course, only face chops on Kaufman, but many other factors, the name, the timing of his rise to prominence, his field (psychiatry, not allopathic medicine), and just a bad feeling he gives me. Cowan less so, but still, timing is everything, and his loss of license is almost prescribed. The quality of their content? I enjoyed Dave McGowan all the way through, even though I knew somewhere along the line that he was a limited hangout.

      And, limited hangout is the key, this far, no further. C&K will bring us down the path of obvious, but there is more, or must be more, that they were hired to misdirect us from. For that reason, I abandoned both, thinking that something better would come along. With Lanka, maybe, but the whole court case affair seems off. There are other writers on Substack, most, like me, the real deal through right and wrong, never aiming to deceive but often enough missing the mark. So I can live without C&K, as both the initials and the face chop are subtle tells.

      By the way, take a look at the Kaufman face chop, and remember the words of Pink Floyd,

      Tell me, is something eluding you sunshine?

      Is this not what you expected to see?

      If you want to find out what’s behind these cold eyes

      You’ll just have to claw your way through the disguise.

      Like

      Reply

  10. Excellent question, why is Mathis trying to sell germs as real? I’m flabbergasted by the fact he doesn’t want to look into the foundations of virology. He’s got all the prerequisites to do it properly, just as he did with physics. Yet he refuses to do so and in the meantime, he ridicules anybody in favour of an alternative explanation pertaining to the question of diseases. Go figure. As if someone told him to stay away from it? I don’t know what’s going on and why that’s so, but I’m speculating it’s his own choice – as he’s usually preaching about the 3rd door answer being the proper one and he’s got no such option with disease theory, he’s chosen to go against the terrain theory. But the arguments he’s using to prove TT as a psyop are being pulled out of his arse, so to speak. Which is why I’m even more astounded by his line of thoughts here.

    Anyway, nice to see you commenting again, Matt.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I think that Mathis is a bit wound up in his own hall of mirrors, as when he tackled, in one short paper, the riddle of who wrote Shakespeare, and claimed to have solved it. It’s not that he’s necessarily wrong (he probably is in that case), but rather that he lacks humility and is too often a pedagogue. I rarely finish anything he writes over three pages. I used to read them religiously.

      Like

      Reply

  11. Well DNA is not a hoax. I will say the hoax part would be that it is the sole source of heredity. That is something under serious question. As far as the double helix, that is oversold as critical to its structure. More critical that Watson and Crick (or they took the ideas from someone else) figured out base pairing correctly. And that there are two complimentary strands.

    DNA biochemistry is as well understood as any chemistry, and characterized. You can cut it, make inserts, all very specifically, sequence it, and transfect cells with it to produce recombinant proteins. DNA is the basis for all biotechnology and biological drugs, its how insulin, and every other biological drug like monoclonal antibodies are made. Theres absolutely no question DNA is the template for protein synthesis, and a real important molecule in biology.

    Since I know well that Watson and Crick were juiced, big surprise, and the early work was sloppy, but correct in many ways, which part of DNA are we saying is a hoax? Just because there is DNA does not mean “infectious/harmful” viruses are bullshit.

    Like

    Reply

    1. The last sentence should read that DNA can exist and do much of what it is claimed to do – be the stable template for protein synthesis that is in every cell that can reproduce – without the need to invoke the idea of a killer or harmful virus, which I don’t believe in. And terrain theory does sound mostly correct, you can get infections but only through insertion of foreign cells in a host environment that causes the foreign organisms (bacteria, fungi) to consume healthy host cells.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I think if I base my future thoughts about germs/terrain as NOT an either/or, I might make way to a breakthrough. As it is I am mired, not sure of either approach. My wife had melanoma surgery, large gash on her calf, and it got infected. They put her on antibiotics, for like a month, and one of the doctors admitted that this slowed down healing. But I do not interfere in that stuff … her body, her life, her decisions, and if she followed my advice and not treat the infection … what if I’m wrong?

        Like

        Reply

  12. I believe you haven’t read the article, Ray.

    You’re into biochemistry if I remmeber correctly, so here’s a few challenging questions for you from the above linked article:

    • What makes scientists believe that the inactive part of the cell, the nucleus, contains the vital information of “life” and the tissue formation?
    • What makes scientists believe that components extracted from chemically treated tissue of one specie represent the content of all cells, nuclei, and nucleic acid of all species?
    • Why the extraction components (adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine) and the DNA x-ray crystallography are not re-performed in order to re-confirm the findings?
    • Why Signer’s protocols of extracting large amounts of perfectly preserved DNA that can be stored in room temperature (up until today) are not re-performed and not practiced?
    • etc…

    If you’re honestly going to think about what you actually know as allegedly factual vs assuming or believing it, you’re in for one hell of a ride.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There’s another site I came across on this topic that had an article series called “the DNA hoax.” I haven’t had time to go through it all, but it was pretty interesting because he had some technical ability or training, and would actually order lab materials and do tests, with photos. Show promotional videos from PCR product manufacturers etc and give criticism and jokes about it – control studies.substack.com

      Like

      Reply

    2. Hi minime, i’ll try to answer briefly. I honestly don’t have the time to read/watch all these DNA is a hoax videos. I already watched many before, and the smelled a lot like Flat Earth deception level psyops. And if DNA is a hoax, then all of chemistry is a hoax. DNA is clearly a real polymer that serves as a template for protein synthesis, so I’m trying to figure out what is a “hoax” about it. It is certainly not fake.

      First, who says the nucleus is inactive? That is totally incorrect, and no one says that in mainstream biology. DNA is a stable repository of the blueprints for proteins. It is not inactive, there is transcription of genes going on constantly.

      Also, the DNA codes for proteins, and enzymes, which are all proteins, and they do all the work in the cell. Proteins are amazing and incredibly diverse.

      Many cells from many species have been tested, and contain DNA. I have worked with a few, including bacteria, and human cells. They contain DNA. If they didn’t they couldn’t synthesize proteins, and hence would not be alive. What else would be the template for protiens? DNA polymerases are very well studied, you can buy them, amazing fidelity – less than one error per million base pairs. I have worked with and tested several different ones, cloned from different species, like extremophiles.

      DNA structure is constantly tested, look up the protein data bank, there are a ton of structures of proteins co-crystallized with DNA.

      Is there anyone else that needs convincing this is a silly thing to consider a hoax? Like flat earth, there’s elements out there who want you to think everything is fake, and scientists know and do absolutely nothing. Balderdash.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Ok, I got it. It’s all balderdash. Don’t know what I was thinking trying to reason with you.

        However it is, you failed to answer even one of the above questions reasonably. I wonder why though.

        Especially the one about how is it possible that the most delicate molecule of them all – DNA – is able to survive a) extraction from the living host intact and b) repeated heating and treatment with harsh chemicals with no changes to its composition and structure?

        As much as I’ve learned and read in the mainstream, you’re only regurgitating it, like a true believer. It’s boring.

        I don’t know all the answers nor do I pretend to. But the nobel prized discovery of yet unseen molecule and its paper for sure reads like some low-level sci-fi booklet. The amount of assumptions contained in there is just preposterous, yet sold as facti bruti.

        You’re laughing at the criticism as being some kind of FE psyop, but I don’t even understand your position. How does questioning the DNA dogma and demanding evidence & repetition of experiments equal a psyop? Have you lost it, bro?

        Like

        Reply

        1. Minime, you answered the question yourself. DNA is not fragile. Who is saying it is fragile? You can heat it to 100C and it only melts – the two strands separate. Then you cool it and it anneals with the correct base pairing pattern, if you do it slowly enough. That is how primers work to start PCR. This is all well understood science. You can see DNA with your own eyes in gel electrophoresis, using polyacrylamide or agarose and a fluorescent dye.

          Also, they use plasmid DNA for manipulations. Genomic DNA, because it is so large is unstable when removed from the cell, often due to mechanical stress. The strands are extremely long. Plasmid DNA is about 5000 base pairs, compared to millions of bp in a chromosome. So small pieces of DNA survive. Then you transfect them into the cell they become integrated into the host genome, or survive as independent plasmids, like in E.coli.

          Like

          Reply

      2. I’m kind of where minime is, just from the outside looking in it seems like it’s at least being distorted in what we’re told, and maybe in what some working scientists are told. For instance, speaking of the primers and PCR, that page I cited above describes how the primers and machines are proprietary “black boxes.” In “real” science from the old school, scientists are supposed to be able to make all their own equipment or understand it fully – they can buy it readymade for convenience of course, but in theory they should understand it well enough to fabricate it themselves if they had to. IIRC that guy claimed it was not the case, they were just using these processes “blind” and trusting their results. I appreciate your pushback on the skeptics though, like I said I’m just a curious observer.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Tim you’re a nice guy so I’ll explain it as best I can. I believe I am qualified since I build analytical insturments for a living.

          For PCR there is confusion on the applications here. For black box PCR, they are talking about routine screening for “diseases” or whatnot, where everything is locked down. They call an analytical instrument a black box if you can’t fiddle with the settings. Because it is purpsose built for one thing: screening for disease high throughput style, with thousands of samples a day running. They want people with a high school diploma to be able to run them.

          For research purposes, you design everything yourself for PCR. I don’t feel like typing out the entire process for subcloning, or making mutations, but it involves isolation of plasmid DNA, getting it sequenced (you need to design the primers for that, if you screw up you get nothing). Then you design primers (order them custom from companies that make them by solid phase synthesis, which can only do 100 base pairs or so, it is inefficient) that have restriction enzyme sites that are unique to the plasmid and your gene, and put them at the ends of the primer, so they overhang. The primers will have 1-2 base pairs being different, which will cause the codon to change, making it a mutation. Then you run your PCR reaction – usually making 1000-2000 base pair fragments) run it on a gel, and extract out the segment you are inserting. Then you cut the plasmid, run it on an agarose gel, extract from the gel, then mix cut plasmid with fragment. They anneal, and you transform into E. coli, which is done by heat and cold shock – where DNA plasmids will go into cell. Then you culture E coli in conditions where only the mutant will grow – with antibiotic, because the plasmids always have antibiotic resistance genes. Then after overnight culture streak out onto a plate containing antibiotic. Then you grown up several colonies from the plate and purify the plasmids, and send out for sequencing, where you have to give them your custom primers. If you are careful and everything goes right you will get your mutation. But sometimes you get mutations in the wrong place, or skips in the code, which will screw up the open reading frame.

          Once you have confirmed you have your mutation, you can transform this plasmid into E coli, or human cell lines, and it will make your exact protein of interest, over expressed – they call this the recombinant protein as opposed to wild type. There are genes and promoters that cause the overexpression of the gene when you say add a lactose analog to your media. And then you can take your purified protein, that you have to purify, and test several ways, including mass spectrometry, that can tell you atom by atom what the protein is.

          None of what i stated above is black box, you are testing as much as you can along the way, and it requires careful experimentation. But this was worked out over decades, and again is the basis for all biotechnology drugs, from insulin to the new weight loss Glucagon like peptides.

          Like

          Reply

        2. So what do I think is a hoax: DNA, specifically the presence of some virus as determined by PCR – that is a hoax. Also sequencing cancer cells to determine mutations that direct treatment of some specific cancer drug, like a monoclonal antibody – I find that a very shaky theory.

          I also think DNA as as the sole source of inhertance is a hoax. DNA is not alive and cannot reproduce by itself. It needs a cell, with proteins in an active state to do that. I have thought for a long time the entire state of the cell, which includes proteins, and other structures, determines the offspring – not just the DNA code. And maybe other things we are not aware of at all. Like why do all the men in my paternal line have similar looking chins? I can’t see how DNA could give you the entire morphology for an organisms structure with just nucleotide sequences.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Thanks for elaborating, very interesting though it’s all beyond me of course. Not sure if you saw my question below or if that was a “no comment” one..

            Like

            Reply

            1. Oh yes about Watson and Crick. It’s hard to speculate what went on. I was thinking about this today. It’s quite possible they decided to “give” the discovery to this Anglo-American twosome, to begin the postwar dominance of Anglo-America in the sciences and culture, as the Beatles and Stones were later tapped as fronts for this worldwide Anglophile culture takeover. If they were given the discovery, likely it came from German scientists working in obscurity (lab slaves) postwar for the Americans and British. Germany was absolutely dominant in Chemistry pre-world war 2, and made critical discoveries such as the structure of polymers in the 1930s, which is a vastly underrated discovery. Before that they had no idea if polymers were colloids, or micelles, or what the covalent structure was of these very large repeating molecules, which had been produced for decades in the form of vulcanized, or crosslinked polyisoprene (natural rubber) obtained from harvesting rubber latex from rubber trees.

              Like

              Reply

              1. You have probably never heard of Staudinger, and you should have. Also, I recommend reading a biochemistry textbook and understanding the material before you jump on the hoax bandwagon. I was able to feel comfortable when I discovered nuclear weapons were a hoax because i was very familiar with their claims and what the record said they did.

                Hermann Staudinger Foundation of Polymer Science – Landmark – American Chemical Society

                Like

                Reply

          2. Very interesting. And no, I’m not jumping on any bandwagons one way or the other, I recognize I don’t have enough understanding to make any conclusions for myself. Just an interested observer listening to what people in both camps say. You have a lot of credibility with your background plus openness to skepticism in general, and seeing problems in some places but not others, or the possibility of scripting with Watson and Crick, etc. But I don’t know if I can make it such a big focus for myself that I could get an in depth knowledge. I don’t have the steel trap memory of a Miles Mathis, haha.

            Like

            Reply

    3. That mythology of Watson and crick is a red flag around it all. Maybe the science of it is real, but their story is too incredible – in the very early days they laid out all the key points, and later it was all borne out by experiments allegedly. At the least it would appear that the science was already known beforehand, and they were used to front for it and reveal it. That might be something Ray could agree with?

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment