This is a brief excerpt from The Infectious Myth, a Book Project by David Crowe. A chapter of the book is titled Antibody Testing for COVID-19. That chapter is 23 pages including footnotes.

Crowe is a Canadian researcher, and I have found him, like Dr. Andy Kaufman, to be diligent in all his work, and modest in temperament. They each realize that being wrong is always a possibility. That makes their research a faithful pursuit of truth, that is, they do their work aware of their own shortcomings. It is refreshing.

This excerpt begins on page 3. It discusses the current testing that is going on for antibodies to SARS-Cov-2, a hard thing to do given that this virus, said to cause COVID-19, has never been isolated and purified. They are short a gold standard of certainty of what they are doing. They could as easily and unknowingly be testing for measles.

A large number of population surveys have been compiled by Dean Beeler and they reveal a wide range of percentages of populations antibody positive, from less than 1% in many cases to 32% in a poor part of Boston. This is generally seen as an indication of how far through the population that the virus has rampaged. One flaw of most of these surveys is that the population is chosen non-randomly, and does not represent the general population. The group may be a household survey, volunteers, high school students and staff, health care workers, blood donors, or people going for blood tests at a lab.

Continue reading “The dangers of antibody testing …” →

Beneath the fold is a transcription of a video by Dr. Andy Kaufman that I thought important enough to pass on to readers. It is called “The Rooster in the River of Rats,” a string of words that will get you to the video even if YouTube censors it. I have faithfully recorded the words, eliminating interjections and speech habits that we all have that distract from the message. What follows is, in my opinion, faithful to his thoughts.

The most important part of this transcription is the last part in which he analyzes the manner in which the original SARS-CoV (2003) was(n’t) purified before gene sequencing, so that whatever was sequenced could be anything. It was helpful in analyzing a paper forwarded to me by a bacteriologist.

The paper, by Kim, Chung et al called Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with Covid-19 was presented to me has having “isolated, purified, and sequenced” the virus. It’s a short paper, mercifully, and mostly accessible to non-scientists. In it I found no evidence that they did anything more than isolate and sequence a virus, no purification, no proof of filterability.* They then found that the sequence matched the SARS-CoV-2 virus to the degree of 99.5%. They noted that the same RNA was obtained at the end of the process that they had put in at the beginning, but in greater quantity.” (See footnote 1.) (By the way, the virus said to be flying around today is labeled SARS-CoV-2. “Covid-19” is the disease it is said to cause.)

However, I invite more scientifically grounded opinions. (Seek and ye shall find. See footnote 1.) I am, after all, but a retired CPA. (I also note that they used the RT-PCR to amplify their results X40, perhaps 3-5 levels above the normal use of the machine. There is a level of magnification where 100% of the population might have the sequence they are looking for.

*Thomas Rivers in 1937 attempted to modify Koch’s Postulates to accommodate viruses, making them six instead of four, which are:  isolate, cultivate, prove filterability, replicate in host, re-isolate, detect specific immune response. These postulates were further modified in the 1960s, adding what are in effect weasel words.

Henceforth, Dr. Andy Kaufman.

Continue reading “Sloppy virology” →