How can millions of people, all exhibiting signs of COVID have whole genome sequences that match the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome if viruses don't exist?
How can millions of people, all exhibiting signs of COVID have whole genome sequences that match the SARS-CoV-2 reference genome if viruses don't exist?
If you create a document which answers 4 or more of the questions posed in this article, please post a link to it here along with your name and your scientific credentials (esp your experience in genetics and/or virology). That way it will be easy for everyone to find. Links only please. If your document doesn't meet the conditions, your link will be deleted to keep this area focused. Serious answers only. I really want to see the explanations.
If you claim that everyone is collaborating to fake the data, for example, you should include the actual evidence of mass collusion if you want people to take your allegations seriously.
If you have evidence that genomic sequencing is fake science, simply provide a dataset of actual reads that can be assembled to get arbitrary genomic sequences and specify the program that was used for the assembly.
"Scientific credentials" can be anything you think would be helpful to people reading your response, e.g., your h-index, number of published papers in genomics, experience with gene sequencing, experience in virology, experience with electron microscopy, experience in lab with cell cultures, history in working with samples from ATCC, books you've written on the topic, etc. If you have no scientific credentials at all, that is fine. You can just state that.
No Steve. YOU need to engage in debunking the actual anti-virus arguments! You ignored and failed to debunk Dr. Kaufman's description of the procedures virologists do to allegedly sequence a virus. I tend to credit virology because nature is "red in tooth and claw" at the macro level and like to be so at the micro level. Whether viruses are "alive or not" is another question.
I'm still waiting for some to answer my questions above if viruses don't exist.
There are over 1,000 comments yet AFAIK, no one has explained how, for example, all the sites (which used denovo sequencing from scratch) could come up with virtually identical sequences on something that doesn't exist. How can that happen? The sequences are 100% determined by what is in the sample. There isn't collusion or a "template." If you think there is, please show us the evidence. WGS doesn't use a template. It is uses randomly generated primers. The only way to get the same sequence is if the sample is genetically identical. I'm surprised this is even a topic of discussion. If I take the same sample to 100 different labs, I'll get the same sequence.
I have laid out all my questions in this article. I've invited Dr. Kaufman to respond to each of the points with a document. No interruptions and no time pressure. I look forward to seeing his response.
Once that is done, we'll have another session with experts on his side and my side.
Influenza Epidemics in the United States, France, and Australia, 1972–1997
Viboud et al found that influenza outbreaks in the US were closely correlated with those in France. There was synchrony in time and correlation in severity (excess deaths).
The peaks in the epidemics were very closely linked with a median time difference between them of 3.5 days. Sometimes the US peaked first and sometimes it was France, with each happening about 50% of the time.
The timing of the 'season' differed from year to year and had more variability than the difference between the two countries. There were no similar correlations with Australia at a 6 month offset.
Measles exhibits similar synchrony which stops after vaccination programs are introduced: "Our study nevertheless strongly suggests that influenza epidemics are correlated in amplitude and synchronized in timing in the Northern Hemisphere, and collection and analysis of additional data is underway in other countries of Europe and North America. Pre-vaccination measles epidemics in different locales of the United States and the United Kingdom were also highly correlated in time and space, a situation that evolved to the observed absence of correlation in the last 2 decades after the level of vaccination increased from 50% to 90%"
With regards to transmissible diseases I would describe these results as "highly unexpected".
If every researcher follows the same procedure, why would you expect they would all get different results unless viruses are real? You need to debunk the hypothesis they might be sequencing something ALWAYS or OFTEN found in humans who have pneumonia.
Steve. YOU need to deign to discuss the computer assisted "sequencing"procedure Dr. Kaufman delineated in the debate. You kept asking him for definitions of words and phrases! NOT IMPRESSIVE! Showed you as "authority" oriented on this issue!
The last time you checked, how was your team manipulating the viruses to make them more…whatever…without isolating them first? If your team was aiming to manipulate the genome of a virus to make it more …whatever…, how could they do so, unless they isolated the virus and its genome first??? You can’t gain function of anything unless you know the function and the cause of the function first? Get it?
With sufficient cycles it can magnify a tiny fragment into a huge amount, and because they started with a fragment they will find "near identical copies".
Have you studied the Gallops Island (Rosenau) Experiment, replicated ~67 times, that shows that 'flu is not transmissible?
Are you claiming that they used some computer to generate sequences?
So how come they have sequences without isolating anything?
Also teach me about science because it seems that I know nothing about it. Is science about verification of what leads to observed natural phenomenon by experimentation on independent variables?
That's exactly true! Go and read any of these papers, they use a "genetic data bank of viruses" to generate a new sequence! However, they have never isolated a single virus to create the bank!
Read this brilliant explanation to understand the depth of this fraud:
Steve, I think Naomi Wolf has one published book out on the Pfizer data drafted by her group of scientists, doctors and statisticians, etc., and another will come out soon. That data has to be quite striking.
De Novo Sequencing by which company? Illumina? Tell me you're not seriously going to mention this without also mentioning the obvious financial conflicts of interest that this company (and other companies) have and the direct incentive they have to FIND whatever they want to find.
I'm talking about the same Illumina that had former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb on their Board of Directors. Gottlieb was also on the Board of Directors at Pfizer, along with his buddy, James Smith (who spent the bulk of his career as President and CEO of Reuters). Smith was the Chairman of the Board.
When Gottlieb was FDA Commissioner, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to Illumina for a "Sequencing-Based COVID-19 Diagnostic Test"(In other words, he granted Emergency Use Authorization to himself, or his other company, Pfizer). Then his buddy James Smith’s Company (Reuters) "fact-checks" in their favor.
So Scott Gottlieb sits on the Board of Pfizer (which stands to make money via the manufacturing and sale of vaccines based on the successful sequence of coronavirus) and his other company is providing the machine that does the alleged “sequencing” - which they all profit handsomely from. This is a direct, undeniable conflict of interest.
Then when honest scientists explain why it wasn’t property isolated or sequenced, James Smith uses his fake fact-checking company to “debunk” these claims so that these criminals can continue scamming the world and making more money. This is also a direct conflict of interest.
And you're participating in this crime, Steve. Without mentioning the company that actually manufactures these fraudulent "sequencing" machines, how do you expect ANYONE who has done their homework to take you seriously?
You really don't know how any of this works do you?
You don't really seem to know much about anything. You might want to start looking around for better advisers who can at least make the quackery sound more intelligible.
Where's your evidence that the machines are legitimate? Post a link. That would be helpful. Shouldn't you at least be skeptical about these machines, since they are manufactured by these shady companies and the entire "sequencing process" was fully controlled by the same organizations that are trying to sell vaccines? You're shilling hard for the vaccine companies, Steve. Everyone here can see that.
Machines follow a program from a programmer - who is paid by an owner - who is part of a group/class. Of course they have an agenda- what an incredibly naïve question - have we not just lived though the greatest psyop of our lives..
Your level of dishonesty is really quite extraordinary, Steve. You throw around these terms like “muh sequencing” and wave your magic wand without actually telling your readers about the real fraud of sequencing machines. So, let’s talk about ”sequencing” with another example from the Lancet:
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam
In the paper above, they claim they “sequenced the virus” using the ARTIC Protocol which comes from the ARTIC Network. The ARTIC Network is funded by the Wellcome Trust, founded by pharmaceutical pioneer Henry Wellcome, current investment portfolio worth well over 30 billion UK pounds.
Wellcome is heavily invested in promoting zero-carbon schemes and pushing Agenda 2030 Climate Change lies and propaganda. They are also active participants in GAVI, CEPI and WHO.
The Wellcome Fund has a direct financial conflict of interest in that IF they can successfully “sequence” a “virus” - these findings would lead to the development of a vaccine from which they will all reap the rewards and profit hundreds of billions of dollars. Their director is Jeremy Farrer who is a direct member of SAGE, which is a body of the UK Government.
The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator (CTA) started in March 2020 with support from Wellcome, Mastercard and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
At the Wellcome Sanger Institute, 200 staff volunteered to contribute to sequencing the viral genomes in 180,000 samples from Covid-19 infections. The institute helped fund the effort which was part of the Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium.
Some of their direct shareholders include Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Amazon, Visa, Berkshire Hathaway, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Cisco, Alphabet/Google, Apple, Facebook, Unilver, etc.
The ARTIC NETWORK and Wellcome had a direct financial incentive to “find” a virus or variant via “sequencing” - If they couldn’t find one, then GAVI, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the rest of these racketeers that you pretend you’re fighting against would fire them and hire another company whose machine WOULD find them.
The fact that you make NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about who funded these so called “sequencing” efforts, where the sequencing machines come from or the conflicts of interest that all these folks have in “finding” whatever they want to find, betrays your agenda, Steve. All of the sequencing efforts were produced by the VERY SAME PEOPLE you PRETEND YOU’RE FIGHTING AGAINST.
You’re a liar and a fraud and you’ve exposed yourself for all to see.
"Muh Sequencing" means "faith based" or "authority based" belief in the valididty of whole virus sequencing. I'd like to see you do a totally detailed exposition of how it is done. Really! I'm not saying this to discredit you.
Imagine locking down the whole world for a computer software virus and calling it a pandemic.
That is what they did. Imagine when all these people find out they took a vaccine for a COMPUTER SOFTWARE VIRUS.
The “full genome” of any virus is not obtained by sequencing an entire intact “virus” that they have isolated, the product of cell culture experiment tainted with multiple sources of genetic material is taken and assembled via computer program into a “full genome.”
Genomic sequencing is a software trick. There is a virus (or whatever) template and you fit the nucleotides on this template, and voila-a new "virus" is created! It is a model on a computer that is 100% fabricated out of thin air.
Whatever one thinks about the "no virus" question it is an important question to work through as the likes of CEPI, GAVI, WHO, CSIS etc. and the governments run by financial parasites have made it perfectly clear that "waging endless war against viruses" is THE next phase of the Global War on 'Fill In the Blank' with copious funding (think trillions) going to these pathogenic Ponzi Schemes.
They plan to loot the public for the foreseeable future using "The Virus™" as their raison d'être. This is all being "war gamed" as we speak with plans for this to be THE cash cow for the Biosecurity Complex for the next many, many years.
So yes, this is more than a little relevant and goes far beyond the Covid Con.
Beyond the scientific and intellectual necessity of examining the entire discussion around germ theory the political and economic consequences simply can't be overstated. Why this discussion sets some people off is curious and quite irrational.
I am on familiar terms with the leading proponents of "no virus" and I can say without question that these are some extraordinarily thorough individuals who approach this with the utmost intellectual rigor.
It must also be noted that virtually all, if not all, of these individuals assert that "viruses have never been scientifically proven to exist" rather than the blanket statement, "viruses don't exist." There is a big difference between these two statements and again none of these individuals have come to this position casually. The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim that an entity X does exist - those that argue that viruses exist nearly always turn this obligation on it's head for the obvious reason that they don't have evidence to support that claim.
For any who have looked into this with any detail to attention and honest scientific exactitude I can't see they could come away from their analysis with anything other than the conclusion that the process by which viruses are allegedly isolated is at best utterly preposterous when not outright fraudulent.
It's also extremely important to understand the history of how we got here.
Virology/Germ Theory have never been unique, solid scientific explorations or discoveries they were political maneuvers that were established by some of the more scurrilous scientific and political actors of the day, as is the case today, and supported financially and institutionally by the wealthiest robber-barons in the world- who then built another financial empire (the medical industry) on the backs of this quack theory.
The entire history of what is called "disease" is built on a foundation of lies and these lies are invented for less than savory purposes and to conceal the real causes of illness.
Since your own definition of a "virus" does not require proof that it is the sole cause of disease, then this is a circular argument that can never produce any data that is worth a crap.
People are trying to understand WHAT is actually causing disease in humans. The Control Group proved that vaccine-exposure is causing well-over 90% of the chronic illnesses. And the CDC proved that 94% of those who purportedly died of covid, already had an average of 2.6 comorbidities, i.e., chronic, life-shortening health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancers, major organ disorders, life-threatening allergies, etc..
So logic would tell us that the "thing" that puts people MOST at risk of dying, is getting injected with the older "soft-kill" vaccines, which we already know are responsible for MOST of these "comorbidities."
Ever consider the possibility that DNA fragments are ubiquitous? Ever consider the possibility that if a company has already patented a vaccine for a particular "disease" they're going to be highly motivated to claim an "outbreak" or a "pandemic" and start blaming sicknesses and deaths on that particular DNA fragment, one which they already know many people are already carrying, whether they're sick or not?
#1 ... "And the CDC proved that 94% of those who purportedly died of covid, already had an average of 2.6 comorbidities, i.e., chronic, life-shortening health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancers, major organ disorders, life-threatening allergies, etc.."
Thus, and after exhausting research, the biggest problem of these vaccines, is that it destroys the immune system and the immune system response mechanisms ... It has been shown, explained, and documented by those who are on the right side of history, and have been in that field for decades ...
#2 ... All major corporations, especially the nefarious ones, sell you problems, because they already have (and know) the answers, solutions, or cures ... Actually, a powerful strategic approach for anyone in business, and isn't nefarious ...
#3 ... I cannot verify this, but I was told in a video, 7-9 countries have gone to their supreme courts, with a COVID type case ... In all cases, the team that went to court won, because no pharmaceutical company could show proof, or prove the virus actually was real, and existed ... So, it was negligence when they harmed or killed someone, and they cannot prove why they did that ...
Nice expansion on the real issues here. What EXACTLY actually killed these people? Seems some people never want to address this particular question, claiming that if they can identify a certain "sequence" then this somehow proves what made someone sick or killed them.
It is my contention that even if we assume these DNA fragments are real, (i.e., that they "exist') it still doesn't prove that they are the cause of the diseases/deaths we're being told they caused. Finding vultures circling over a sick person in the desert, or even finding them ripping the person's flesh later, is not evidence that the vultures kill the person.
I LOVE throwing this line back at pharma: "Association is not causation." ;-)
Of course, when pharma uses that line, they're denying that, even though 80% of deaths reported by VAERS after injection are within HOURS of that injection, it must only be a coincidence. Even when someone drops dead within minutes of injection, pharma claims it's just a coincidence, due to the fact so MANY people (within the 99.74% vaccinated population) die in similar ways.
There's never any LOGIC to what is claimed by the medical/pharma industrial complex. And we know why.
Which labs? Which machines are they using? Do you think that intelligent people here can't see that what you're doing is actually LEGITIMIZING the fraudulent sequencing process for the direct benefit of the vaccine industry?
The game is up, Steve. It's clear what side you're really on.
Begging the question / Circular reasoning / False Premise. First you should answer - WHICH SEQUENCING MACHINE did Sin Lee's Lab use and explain in detail how the sequencing process works. You're protecting Big Pharma and the Vaccine Industry. Why?
And again, there are MANY "sequences" that are NEVER tested for, which ALSO come "before" disease. Sometimes, when a person is weak and getting sick, and/or dying, it causes all sorts of things to "express" in their genetics. So you can CHOOSE a particular code to test for, and then CLAIM that this is the DNA fragment that CAUSED the disease/death.
And your statement that this sequence ALWAYS comes before the disease is entirely FALSE. Many people test "positive" for the sequence and are in no way "diseased" nor ever become diseased. The fact that SOME of the people who test positive later get sick, is NOT evidence that this particular particle, standing alone, is what CAUSED them to become "diseased."
And once again, vultures can be found circling BEFORE the person collapses in the desert. This is not evidence that the vultures are the cause of death.
Because all humans have sequences very similar to SARS-COV-2, within the error of the test. If you take enough sample and amplify it sufficiently you will get a positive match from most or all humans.
Steve Steve. I'll bet you can explain in detail how a light sensing mouse works. Can't you see you are just accepting on faith that whole virus genetic sequencing makes sense? And my bet currently is that viruses exist. Every living thing is attacked on every level so I presume something like the presumed virus exists on the micro level.
The trick they pull on you is not the detection of genetic material. They bamboozle you by making you believe that the genetic material they detect somehow causes disease. It’s bullshit - and total misdirection to shift the blame from the EMF and heavy metal poisoning of the population, to a piece of material that can be found on millions of people (with or without symptoms) - dummy. You should’ve known as soon as the pushed the asymptomatic nonsense- but you can’t teach common sense to indoctrinated folk programmed to believe in fake bought and paid for science.
Steve, you can't answer this question as it stands because it assumes the test results accurately reflect what they claim to show. We need to move past this assumption to debate the argument properly. The assumption fails for two reasons:
Not all people who test positive are actually sick with the disease.
Some people with identical symptoms do not test positive.
Essentially, the test designed to detect the virus shows the same results under a microscope for millions of people, whether they are sick or not. What is claimed to be a genetic sequence is inferred from something they cannot see. They are interpreting noise as the virus because it fits their expectations. Why do you trust the test when it has proven unreliable? Moreover, this unreliability undermines your claim that Koch's postulates have been met.
I have no idea whether or not a paper exists that proves or disproves the accuracy of a WGS test and I don’t care. All I know is that it doesn’t prove the existence of a virus. And why would you trust evidence from any arm of an establishment that brought us the deadly vaccines that you are now so passionately against? Genome sequencing as a method to prove something is there that cannot be seen is pseudo science. The corruption behind this has been in the making for over a century and it has seeped in to so many other industries and organizations that is impossible to trust anything that cooperates with it in any way. As you know, your own school is one example in many. You can bet the sequencing for Covid 19 was well underway before the disease was even announced.
Is the WGS test proven reliable for identifying a particular thing that "exists?"
Well the sun exists. And there are basically an infinite number of DNA chains that exist or can be made to exist. Some things are ubiquitous, and yes, they do "exist." So what?
The fact a thing exists, is not evidence that it is the sole cause of any particular phenomenon.
Great answer! Kirsh assumes the PCR test is telling us the truth about something, when in fact the inventor of the PCR staunchly denied it was capable of diagnosing a viral infection.
Hi Andy! Thank you for the likes! And thank you for providing this link. It's a really interesting document. However, unfortunately, it is not what Kirsch is looking for in his comment above yours to which you replied. What Steve has asked for in his comment above does NOT exist! Steve is asking for a "reference" SPECIFICALLY to *KARY MULLIS* "saying (PCR) is incapable of diagnosing a viral infection". It IS true that such a reference and such a quote do NOT exist! For more information, please review the comments of mine that you have liked.
We now know for a fact that Kirsch is capable of acknowledging when something does NOT exist! LOL! Kirsch should broaden this ability to include acknowledging -and finally CONCEDING- that phantom viruses like SARS-COV2 do not exist! However, Kirsch is PROTECTING the pharma/biotech/vaccine industries, and, as such, his MASTERS in those industries will not allow him to do that!
PCR cannot diagnose anything. It can only find if your sequence is in the specimen (with such and such certainty). It does not look for viruses. Only short nucleic acid chains. And it is not a quantitative test either.
Okay, so now you've resorted to adding me to the "no virus exists" camp, (which I NEVER stated) in order to avoid my REAL argument, which is that I'm still waiting for any hard evidence that these particular particles "sequences", or DNA fragments, standing ALONE are the ACTUAL root/underlying CAUSE of disease.
I do not CARE what people choose to call these particles. When I challenged you to a debate, I stated that I would concede that these particles "exist" as the foundation, so that we could proceed to the REAL issue, which is whether or not we have hard evidence that these particular particles, (currently being identified with the PCR test) standing alone, are in fact the CAUSE OF DISEASE.
It is an outright LIE to claim that I have stated I "don't believe" that these particles "exist" at all. People choose to call them "viruses" and I won't ever argue that point, because I don't CARE what the particle is, or what anyone calls it. I only care whether or not I can see hard evidence that the particle (or substance) is in fact the CAUSE of disease.
Lying about what I have stated is a VERY POOR method of attempting to win a debate. I believe the issue of the "existence" of a particle/DNA fragment, or "virus" etc., is actually IRRELEVANT and nothing more than a red herring. If you're going to outright lie about my statements then there's nowhere to go from here.
Are you merely responding to someone else and got me confused with them?
These should enlighten you. The PCR was ABUSED to make the argument that we needed vaccines to protect us from "viruses."
PCR is a technique for producing millions of copies of any tiny fragment of genetic information from billions of building blocks. So basically, you can build whatever the hell you want to, (any "sequence") once you give it the INSTRUCTIONS for building it, SO THAT you can say someone is "infected" with a virus/particle that you'd like to say they're infected with.
JOY! STOP INVOKING MULLIS! He was one of THEM (the establishment)!! Once again, I was actually THERE at that Q & A seminar!! LISTEN TO ME! You are NOT helping your arguments at ALL by citing MULLIS!!! STOP IT!! PCR is DEFINITELY B.S., but STOP RELYING ON MULLIS to show that fact!!
What are you on about? Don't you think its odd that he was the most outspoken individual against Faucci and the use of PCR to dectect disease.... and he "died" a few months before Covid. Would not have looked good as him in one of the disinformaiton dozen. The actual inventor of the machine used to scam us all saying it cant be sued for that.
I am not "invoking him" (I think you mean edifying). Also, I gave the link to the Q & A and also a lengthy interview were he tells even more of the truth about what his invention ACTUALLY does and how it does it. He says he was shocked to find out the FDA was claiming the PCR could be used to diagnose an infection.
It is upon the reliability of the PCR test that Kirsch relies to bolster his argument that a virus called "CV-19" is what made people sick and dead.
WTF are you so afraid of this guy's name? Some of what he says makes sense and he does know what he's talking about on the PCR subject, even if some of the other stuff he says doesn't make sense. He admits that the PCR just rebuilds copies from a bit of genetic code using BILLIONS of other "building blocks" sourced from OTHER genetic materials (tissues). Does that sound like a reliable way to find out what the hell is going on with anything?
He also explains that the whole "HIV" scam was just that, a scam to get people to take deadly drugs. He claims this "HIV" particle was never even shown to be the cause of AIDS.
People are so fully hung up on nomenclature (what a particle is being called) that they completely lose sight of the real issue, which is simply "show me evidence that this particular particle IS in fact the cause disease." Kirsch turns to the reliability of the PCR test as his evidence that a particular particle is the cause of disease.
Everyone seems to be engaged in the WRONG argument. Particles exist. Sequences exist. And the "no virus" camp is claiming there are no particles or sequences, which is the WRONG argument. And the other side of the argument is that the very existence of the particles and the sequences is evidence that "viruses" exist. I don't CARE about any of that. What I care about is the LIE that these particular particles are the actual cause of disease.
You want to argue that no particles exist, and that THIS means there are no "viruses" and it's an irrelevant position. What is causing disease, or NOT causing it, is MY argument, and I do NOT need to join a religion, or ascribe to the theory that particles don't exist at all, to make it. The argument that these particles (or pieces of genetic code) do not exist at all, just sounds silly to me.
I've seen these dozens of time. Ever time, I can't find the part where he says "PCR cannot be used to find the presence of a virus." Where exactly does he say that? I keep missing it.
DISEASE is NOT virus. A PCR machine cannot find disease. Absolutely agree. He says that.
I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles are in fact the cause of disease.
One of the interesting points Kary Mullis makes, (I believe in the 2nd link I gave you) is that he was involved in the "HIV" scam in the early days, and has first-hand personal knowledge of the fact that this bit of genetic code named "HIV" was NOT actually the cause of "AIDS."
And he does state that his PCR technology relies upon genetic code of the chosen particle to be used as an instruction to rebuild itself using building blocks gleaned from billions of other materials. Rebuilding copies of a bit of genetic code is NOT evidence that it causes disease.
So if 90% of the population ALREADY has this same bit of code, (already obtained it, one way or another) and it's a code that gets expressed more fully when a person suffers malnutrition and/or some type of toxic assault, or even just chronic stress, we should test these people for this bit of genetic code to find out if they're sick? If someone IS sick, or is NOT sick, do we really need to see what type of genetic codes they're carrying to understand WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SICK?
We've been testing perfectly healthy people to see if they're sick. And if they happen to carry a particular fragment of genetic code, we will say they are sick/infected, in order to STRIP THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS, isolate them from family, drug them into oblivion, and ultimately murder them in hospitals. Did you know that 75% of vaccinated kids are now testing "positive" for an active "covid infection?" It's weird. Many questions in there.
Turns out a great many people who are sick have a "load" of MANY genetic codes that are never tested for. But we believe a particular one (chosen one) must be the CAUSE of their illness? Locating a particular code is NOT evidence that this particular strand of code cause their illness.
I know of far too many people who arrived at the hospital WITHOUT "covid" symptoms, but who urgently needed help with other issues, and who were tested and got a positive with the PCR. They ended up TRAPPED, isolated, (from witnesses) and "treated" with Fauci's deadly protocols, which turned out to be the CAUSE of their deaths. We already knew that Remdisivir killed close to 50% of those exposed to it BEFORE that murdering scum pushed it for covid. And of course, once someone tested positive for covid, their deaths were called covid deaths.
Remember, association is not causation. Just because a fungus shows up on a dead log, doesn't mean the fungus killed the tree. Just because vultures are circling, doesn't mean that they later caused that person's death, even though we DID witness the vulture violently ripping their tissues apart and eating them.
So even if the PCR test can correctly identify the presence of a bit of genetic code, (and rebuild copies of it from other materials so that they can claim a large enough "load" is there to constitute an "infection") this is still not evidence that this fragment is the actual CAUSE of disease.
We all fell for the lie that "cholesterol" was the enemy too. It just happens to show up when tissue has been injured. Without it, we would die MUCH sooner, as our arteries are taking a great deal of pressure, and when the tissues are breaking down (due to toxins and poor diet) cholesterol is there to HELP us, by reinforcing the tissues. We now have a growing body of evidence that heart disease can be REVERSED with a high cholesterol carnivore diet.
So finding cholesterol "at the scene of the crime" and deciding that it caused the injuries, is the same as saying cops are responsible for all of the crime "cuz I keep seeing them at crime scenes."
It seems NEITHER side of this "virus" debate even understands what matters here. What matters to me, is whether we actually understand the underlying CAUSE of disease, not whether a particular genetic sequence can be identified and proven to "exist."
This is not accurate! Dr. Kary Mullis' EXACT words were: "It (PCR) doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you, or anything like that"...!! I was THERE when Mullis uttered these words back in 1997. I helped to produce the seminar where Mullis said this! Mullis BELIEVED in viruses, and he DEFINITELY believed that his PCR could INDEED detect viruses. Mullis was PART of the PROBLEM! Please see:
I just know that the PCR is NOT capable of identifying whether someone is actually infected OR contagious, let alone that they will ever get sick. So this defeats any arguments that the PCR can be used to prove the existence of a virus -within the definition that these particles are the ACTUAL cause of disease.
This person's ability to use a test to identify a particle has nothing to do with proving that the identified particle is the cause of disease.
If an identified particle doesn't make you sick, and if MANY people end up with the symptoms of the sickness associated with the particle but test NEGATIVE for that particle, where is the hard evidence that this particular particle is actually what caused sickness?
Again, it keeps coming back to one side trying to make those who question all of this seem like lunatics for denying the existence of the particles, when in fact, what's being denied, is that there is any hard and direct evidence to prove that these particular particles are IN FACT what's causing disease.
So if your definition of a "virus" says that it is not necessarily proven to be the cause of disease, well this would be different than what the "there's no virus" camp is saying. Their definition is the traditional one (which was changed just a few years ago) to now NOT include that it must have been proven to actually be the CAUSE of disease. Remember, association is not causation.
Maggots and even vultures are frequently seen where there is death. This is NOT evidence that they maggots or the vultures are the CAUSE of death. Vultures are also seen circling BEFORE death. Still doesn't prove the vultures caused it. With a 97% rate of false positives, I am discouraged you would support the use of PCR testing to tell us what's going on here.
I don't disagree with your latest post, Joy! READ MY LINKS in my previous post! I'm a FREAKIN' DISSIDENT myself!! However, you need to STOP INVOKING KARY MULLIS!! He BELIEVED IN VIRUSES! He was WRONG about that and OTHER THINGS! Mullis was NOT a hero to our old "AIDS" dissident movement!! Far from it! So, just STOP THE HERO WORSHIP OF MULLIS PLEASE!!
You need to STOP falsely accusing me of "worshipping" him. I am simply pointing to the fact he is very clear that his PCR test if NOT the way to determine the CAUSE of any disease in a human. And this matters because Steve's entire argument for the "existence" of the virus, relies upon the reliability of the PCR. Mullis may have "proof" that a DNA fragment (particle) "exists" and both he, and others, may choose to call it a "virus" but this is IRRELEVANT to whether or not a DNA fragment STANDING ALONE is the cause of disease in anyone.
You are correct that he believed in viruses and that PCR could detect viruses. People refuse to believe it. They believe what they want to believe even when there is no evidence to support that believe which is what is happening here.
"Phage therapy, viral phage therapy, or phagotherapy is the therapeutic use of bacteriophages for the treatment of pathogenic bacterial infections.[1][2][3] This therapeutic approach emerged at the beginning of the 20th century but was progressively replaced by the use of antibiotics in most parts of the world after the Second World War. Bacteriophages, known as phages, are a form of virus[4] that attach to bacterial cells and inject their genome into the cell.[5] The bacteria's production of the viral genome interferes with its ability to function, halting the bacterial infection.[5] The bacterial cell causing the infection is unable to reproduce and instead produces additional phages.[4] Phages are very selective in the strains of bacteria they are effective against.[5]"
No the ball is on your side, you claimed they do not exist, there is plenty of evidence about to suggest otherwise. You are the one who claims it is all lies. Prove it if you want to be judge and jury. I would suggest you read Mike Yeadons response below.
You are straw manning me and it is a logical fallacy by misrepresenting my argument which is things which are claimed to be real are not proven to be real. Thus the burden of proof is still on those who claim them being real as per logic.
Mike Yeadon learned from me that viruses are not proven few years ago when I asked him if viruses are proven with adherence to scientific method.
I would suggest you not bothering people if you have no valid arguments to present next time..
So why no one is able to prove any alleged bacteriophage by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them or by experimentation on them in a form of independent variables?
Why all we have is pointing and declaring of something in micrographs which come from a method (TEM) which is not validated by comparison with reference material?
Not to mention issues with processing of bio matter before it is ready for visualization.
Pathogenic bacteria is not proven by any observation or scientific experiment. And generally study and understanding what so-called bacteria really is is abysmal due a lack of proper tools and methods.
I think Dr. Yeadon's point is concisely made by his last sentence. To paraphrase, human waste can make you sick. Whether you call it a pathogen or not, it can be passed on from one human to another. So, what is it that makes you sick?
One thing I've noticed among all of the studies that disprove contagions. None of them deal with vomit and excrement, or the fluids which can be passed from one to another when someone is sick with a stomach "bug". Can a sick person that is vomiting pass it on to someone else. For the stated reasons above, I think they can.
behaviour that shows a lack of good sense or judgement on social media platforms and you can take me to the court where you will falsely accuse me for slander. Yet I will clearly prove that there was no slander committed.
Do you want to start this game with me or do you want to start interacting with people in good faith?
Blocking me is not going to help you to win the argument. It will be obvious for others that you do not have valid arguments to present.
Wrong. By logic the burden of proof is on initial claimants and their supporters, not on those who question or deny their claims. Also it is not even a scientific theory. For this a hypothesis has to be tested by conducting an experiment on a real independent variable.
"Burden of Proof
Informal
This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
It keeps coming back to naming certain particles and claiming THESE must be the "cause" of disease. The fact is, toxic assaults and malnutrition are the actual cause. Locating some maggots on road kill is NOT evidence that the maggots killed the animal.
Steve, here ya go....oh, and I will BANKRUPT you...why not debate me....and we can put a substantial financial wager on the line....are you up for it? imagine a man with your wealth possessing the intellect of a 5th grader...that you can't understand conceptually why the sequencing process actually disproves virology...hahahahaha....hit me up, I'll give you my information and then proceed to drain your of your wealth...Kaufman is a soft and docile, me, not so much.....
I am not disputing the article, but I don't see how it addresses Steve's question about the mathematical odds of something appearing exactly the same way in over a million people. The article seems contradictory, stating that it is impossible to get a test to look the same on two different computers. So, even if a test is designed to show the same results in people with the disease's symptoms, wouldn't it be nearly impossible to have 1 million identical test results, whether caused by the virus or other environmental factors? Steve's point is that the probability of the results suggests it must be something specific, like the virus. I would like a clearer explanation of the probability aspect of the results, with less focus on the microbiology, which I humbly admit is over my head.
Hi Rob, I don't think you understood the article, so let me try to re-explain it. When 1000 labs around the world do whole genome sequencing and "find" the "virus" all they are really doing is asking the question: can you assemble a hypothetical sequence from this particular person's lung fluid dna. And the answer is: sometimes. That "sometimes" answer doesn't correlate with sickness. Sometimes these people are sick and sometimes they aren't. So there isn't even the most basic of reasons to believe that there is a connection: correlation. But beyond that, the fact that you can sometimes assemble a hypothetical sequence from a person's BALF dna doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean the hypothetical sequence is IN the BALF, it just proves you can assemble it. I can assemble a lego sasquatch from the lego pieces in a 1000 homes around the world - it doesn't mean that everyone has a lego sasquatch in their home. Do you understand? It doesn't mean that ANY home has a lego sasquatch. In order to know if ANYONE has built a lego sasquatch we need to find at least ONE of them to start. But virology has never even done that. It's all smoke and mirrors.
There is no reason for a video debate. I just watched one where you avoided the actual science and tried to land 4th grade level personal attacks for an hour. Your professor friend is perfectly welcome to writing his explanations right here. If he can show that whole genome sequencing is a methodologically sound process upon which to conclude decisively that an infectious replicating particle which causes a disease called covid was clearly found than more power to him. I wouldn't want to have to do that, because it's obvious that it has yet to be done, with all the king's money and all the king's horses ahem, "scientists" . But if he can... or if he would like to even try to do that, than he is welcome to go ahead and write out his proof right here. Then everyone can consider his thoughts and mine and comment for themselves.
Very well explained, Michael. Thank you. This is how I learn; without all the ego. Much appreciated. Essentially the test is the blueprint of a manufactured sequence. And, it makes sense that if you begin constructing it from a person with symptoms, you will more likely see positive tests in people with symptoms. No coincidence there. Still, there are more than enough positives in asymptomatic people and negatives in symptomatic to dismiss any notion that a virus is responsible for the results. In fact, even just one example either way should completely destroy the virus theory.
Not so sure about the "match the blueprint please" sequence. Do you really think all scientists are looking for the "original" patient strain but did not test any of the other millions of patients with symptoms to SEE IF they all match, but are not in healthy subjects? Highly unlikely, but prove me wrong.
Further, a false positive or negative do not invalidate this theory as resistance to disease runs a bell-shaped curve (ie, there will always be outliers in nature).
Ridiculously enough, that is EXACTLY what they do. There is DEF no alignment between sequencing and illness. We have seen the PCR testing fraud in plain daylight. MIllions of non-sick people tested "positive." Its the same in the more rarified world of the whole genome sequencing. there is not a single study out there that shows in any statistically significant way that sick people have "the virus" and healthy people don't. Not a single study. As I have mentioned earlier, they never even did the obscenely simple study of testing contagion by injecting a mouse with "sars cov2" and then seeing how many other mice get sick. Would have cost less than 10 grand. And yes they DO posit that mice get covid - a study they did with injecting a handful of mice with a lung fluid mixture and seeing them lose 10% of their weight was considered seminal in the field of covid studies - even though there were very good reasons beside "a virus" that the mice might have lost weight in the experiment (which were ignored of course). Its all smoke and mirrors. Cheap easy clear experiments which could show clear conclusions are not done. Expensive complex experiments which have faulty reasoning behind them are done instead.
Scientific method doesn’t allow for outliers. If I drop the same ball 100 times in the same room I am sitting in right now, the law of gravity will prove it drops to the floor 100 times. Similarly, If said virus truly exists then a valid test should yield 100% consistent results. This was addressed in Koch’s postulates from the very beginning of germ theory. When things didn’t go as proponents hoped they abandoned the postulates and made exceptions to explain the “outliers”: “asymptomatic carriers, disease resistance immune systems, viral load, etc.” they not only abandoned the postulates, but scientific method as well. Note none of the outliers have been scientifically validated either. It’s all inferred.
Just to add to the point. The other side of it is that folks like Kirsch are claiming not only that there is a lego sasquatch in every messy home, but that it is the cause of why the home is messy (sick). So even IF it could be validated that a sasquatch was found in a home (let alone every messy home), it would still have to validated that the sasquatch was the one messing up everybody's living room and leaving a pile of dishes in the sink. This is why folks like Kaufman say we have no reason to rule out that all we are looking at is cell debris. And since we know that cell debris has the same shape under a micrograph that the theoretical virus has, and since we know that cell debris is a common output from other "virus" "isolation" processes, then it seems we are consistently just looking at cell debris. And since we know that increased cell debris is a common output from sick people, our first assumption until proven wrong should obviously be that there is cell debris in the sample BALF and that is what we are "sequencing".
Very well stated. I do have a couple of unrelated questions on virus and germ theory, but I will stay on course here. Perhaps, I will catchup with you on your Substack. One big takeaway from this thread. According to Steve’s poll, 37% of his Substack followers do not believe in a Covid virus. Huge progress is being made in uncovering the truth. I imagine if he asked that question a year ago, it would be less than half of that. I fully believed in viruses when I first started following Steve 3 or 4 years ago. I’m a paid subscriber for his relentless pursuit against the vaccines, but then these no-virus people started having some not so friendly encounters first. Imán my pursuit to defend Steve, I started asking questions. Those answers to those questions led me to more questions and into reading a few books. I began with the history. The BeChamp Pasteur book put a new light on things I believed about germs and led me to read a few other books. I would say I became solidly against believing in viruses about a year ago now, so I am still a newbie.
Steve, or perhaps you should discuss with Dr. Mark Bailey......I will post his comment from his paper (which still hasn't been refuted) "A Farewell to Virology" here: "no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus. Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance. The “mutations” only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination". Your turn, , sonny boy..
Really tough guy??? you're a real tough guy....I won't read it because you're an imbecile.....and to prove this, why not walk me through how ANY sequence in ANY gene bank is proven to have come from a viral pathogen...or maybe we do it in a ZOOM call, with money on the line??
Tough guy, walk me through how YOU are demonstrating scientifically that the
sequences are viral in nature when you assemble the very first template and declare you have discovered a pathogenic virus....can you walk me through that process, tough guy?
Tough guy, walk me through how YOU demonstrate that any of those sequences belong to a disease-causing replication-competent particle that can make a person ill......how does that work, many Steve can explain that one to me.....
everyone can and do lie some wont at the price of their life... but these evil satan bought souls are threating their families with grusome death... because the majority says its the truth doesnt prove veracity,,, ie the majority of astronomers all agreed that the eatrth was flat and their instruments said the same etc etc. your adopted position was biassed to put it not obcene ly and is untenable and possibly perfidous
You say, “Everyone agrees. There is no debate.” well Kaufman doesn’t, so you “lose” before you have started, by your own hyperbole.
To put that another way: during the interview, your behaviour is likewise, inferior to Kaufman’s and this immediately puts your advocacy at a disadvantage, it’s not a good look…
No amount of <passion> beats <calm> (except by force) plus we are all on the same side (I hope) that is ultimately *against* the use of force, by the State, against the individual such as forced medical-intervention.
The regular way to sequence the whole genome of SARS-CoV-2 is to use a PCR-based protocol like ARCTIC or MIDNIGHT, which actually don't even cover the whole genome because they're missing fragments of about 30-50 bases from the very beginning and end of the genome. For example in the third version of the ARCTIC protocol, the genome is covered by 98 overlapping PCR amplicons with an average length of about 400 bases: https://github.com/artic-network/artic-ncov2019/blob/master/primer_schemes/nCoV-2019/V3/nCoV-2019.bed. But the first forward primer starts at position 30 of Wuhan-Hu-1 and the last reverse primer ends at position 29866, so the first 29 bases and last 66 bases of Wuhan-Hu-1 are not covered by any amplicon.
The protocols have to be updated every now and then because there's amplicon dropoff, because a part of the genome has mutated so it fails to be amplified by PCR. So because of that the protocols also have alternative primers for a couple of locations that have mutated too much so they have amplicon dropoff.
In the paper by Fan Wu et al., the Wuhan-Hu-1 reference genome was initially determined by doing metagenomic RNA-seq with random priming and then by doing de-novo assembly with MEGAHIT. But there's probably not too many sequences of SARS-CoV-2 submitted to GISAID that were sequenced by doing metagenomic sequencing or that were assembled with a de-novo assembler like MEGAHIT.
PCR-based sequencing is cheaper than metagenoming or total RNA sequencing, because you don't have to sequence as much genetic material to get high coverage for the viral genome.
The regular way to assemble the reads is to align the reads against a reference genome with a short read aligner like minimap2 or BWA. De-novo assemblers like MEGAHIT are slower, and they sometimes end up missing a short piece from either end of the genome, or they fail to produce a single complete contig for the entire genome. And they sometimes make an error where either extreme of the viral contig includes a short piece of host ribosomal RNA or a copy of a wrong part of the viral sequence.
And also variant calling workflows are meant to be used with a BAM/SAM file of raw reads that were aligned against a reference, so they can't be used with a FASTA file produced by MEGAHIT which contains the whole genome in a single piece but which is missing base quality scores.
I wasn't talking about PCR testing but about a method used in genetic sequencing where PCR is used to amplify overlapping regions of the genome of a virus. The purpose of PCR in that case is to reduce sequencing costs by making more copies of the viral genome, so that you can get many reads which cover the genome without having to sequence gigabytes of genetic material.
Kary Mullis wrote: "I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two 'primer target sequences' comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way." (http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/McDonald-Mullis.html)
basic premis is perfidous therefore all that fol;lows are the perfidous fruits kerry mullis states that its not a test its a method of replication not identification
the creator of the pcr kerryu mullins said it cannot be used as a test ,,, pcr can only replicate ... and you choose to ignore this truth by the inventor of pcr , thats equats to tremendous dizzing specular ego mania or tremendopus perfidy
Hey Alex, you should IGNORE "henjin", but you really would be well advised to stop citing Kary Mullis! He was NOT a hero to our old "AIDS" dissident movement! This quote is NOT what it seems to be! Dr. Kary Mullis' EXACT words were: "It (PCR) doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you, or anything like that"...!! I was THERE when Mullis uttered these words back in 1997. I helped to produce the seminar where Mullis said this! Mullis BELIEVED in viruses, and he DEFINITELY believed that his PCR could INDEED detect viruses. Mullis was PART of the PROBLEM! Please see:
friend thanks for trying to put me on the right truth track,,,i read all the links 6they are all commtaries on whatkary alledgedly said and quite out of context . i think ... i learned to read from the source, in this case vid footage although fabrication ommisions abound ... i couldnt find an unedited uncensored original that i saw at the begining of thisw sad event...yes the pcr could detect viruses provided the virus has been identified isolated , which is quintessental , then the pcr can work otherwise as kary says in the vid , you dont know what genes your looking at ... finally ,,,, yandex came up w3ith the vid , thats the link i send as i remember the vid... your links are well perfidous by omission,,,please no offence intended by me ... just truth... good God bless everyone ... happy trails yippie ya yea...
Alex I'm really sorry that you continue to be confused even after I supplied links that should provide you with clarification about the "role" that Kary Mullis actually played in our dear old "AIDS" dissident movement. However, in the VERY SHORT span of time that you took to post your reply, it's not even possible for you to have truly absorbed everything at all of the links I provided . As such, I don't believe there is anything else I can do at this point to try to enlighten you any further. God bless YOU too, and happy trails to you, too friend...!
thank you for your good intent,[ i can do simple speed reading ,, as far as kary ...im not interested in personalities in this subject... just pcr facts... pcr can detect and identify any gene provided its been isolated and been proven to be causitive of illness... kovid hasnt been isolated ,,, its genetics were created on with computer etc ... i wish you all the best
In the patent for PCR that was issued in 1986 to Kary Mullis et al., they wrote that one application for PCR would be to diagnose the presence of pathogenic microorganisms including viruses. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US4683195] Mullis was also the last author of a patent from 1989 titled "Detection of viruses by amplification and hybridization", where they specifically wrote that PCR can be used to detect HIV, and they wrote that HIV has been sequenced and that there are isolates of HIV available. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US5176995A] Kary Mullis was additionally one of the authors of a paper published in 1987 titled "Identification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Sequences by Using In Vitro Enzymatic Amplification and Oligomer Cleavage Detection". [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254157/pdf/jvirol00096-0400.pdf]
When Kary Mullis said that "quantitative PCR is an oxymoron", I believe he meant that PCR was not an accurate way to quantify viral load, and not that PCR was not an accurate way to determine whether a sample contains a virus or not. John Lauritsen wrote: "With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: 'Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.' PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers." [https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlprotease.htm]
In an interview with Gary Null, Mullis also said: "PCR came along right about the same time that HIV did. And it was in that [unintelligible word] that people started looking with PCR for HIV. That was the only way to see it, except for culture. Which was a long protracted procedure, which a lot of times didn't turn right. [...] The culture - the whole method - cell biology is a bunch of magic half of the time. And people who say that they can do quantitative estimations of HIV from culture, they're just - they're fooling themselves." [https://www.bitchute.com/video/8SjzUDxBZL9t/, time 9:05] But by "quantitative estimations", I think Mullis was again talking about estimating viral load.
HIV is typically detected using antigen or antibody tests and not PCR, but the main use of PCR tests in the case of HIV was traditionally to measure viral load. PCR tests for HIV are commonly called "NAT tests" or nucleic acid tests, and they are further divided into quantitative and non-quantitative NAT tests depending on whether their aim is to measure viral load, even though some NAT tests for HIV also use transcription-mediated amplification instead of PCR. So the typical use of PCR tests for HIV is different from the typical use of PCR tests for COVID.
The CDC's website says that "Most rapid tests and the only HIV self-test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are antibody tests." [https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-testing/test-types.html] And the CDC's website also says that a NAT test "can tell if a person has HIV or how much virus is present in the blood (HIV viral load test)" and that a NAT test "should be considered for people who have had a recent exposure or a possible exposure and have early symptoms of HIV and who have tested negative with an antibody or antigen/antibody test" (so basically a NAT test is used as a fallback for antibody and antigen tests).
In the year 2006 in Australia, there was a court case where someone was convicted of three counts of endangering life after he had unprotected sex with three women without telling them that he was HIV positive. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070709210442/http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/2007-SASC-143-Parenzee.pdf] He appealed by stating that HIV has not been proven to exist, and testimony in his favor was provided by Eleni Papadopolous-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner from the Perth Group. After Mullis's comments about PCR were brought up the Perth Group, Mullis was sent an e-mail which said: "I am assisting the prosecution in an Appeal to the Supreme court in South Australia about a conviction for criminal transmission of HIV. The basis for that Appeal is that HIV does not exist and that the PCR technology is flawed. So in effect the technical basis for identification of virus is on trial. The group of denialists giving evidence are people from Perth who quote you as indicating that PCR technology is erroneous and misleading. Can I ask you to comment on this statement." [http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/McDonald-Mullis.html] But Mullis responded by writing: "I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two 'primer target sequences' comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way." And Mullis also wrote that "the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR".
I just want to applaud you. Even though we seem to disagree on the conclusions one can draw from these studies, you are one of the only people I have ever met who has actually read and familarized yourself with the historical criticism of virus theory and then discussed it. So, even though we seem to disagree on whether the theory is valid or not, I do thank you for joining the discussion and doing so in a contemplative way!
Whats written in a patent is a claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be capable of being "reduced to practise".
I suspect, because I've done it myself, is to disclose a use OTHERS might want to patent. You do this because then you've "prior arted them".
They cannot secure a patent unless something is NEW, INVENTIVE and USEFUL.
If its disclosed already, you cannot get a strong patent on anything using that which is in the public domain already, because your invention lacks novelty.
Perhaps truth lies in the middle ground between no virus and contagious virus. Viruses are exosomes manufactured by the body to remove toxins, they are clean-up crew and are never contagious to others. All the people with matching genetic sequences have been poisoned with an identical synthetic toxin.
If you test positive, you are by definition "infected" regardless of how healthy you are. When you test again the next day you are going to be a little more or a little less infected due test variation and variation in the concentration of genetic material in the sample.
If the NYT and accredited (indoctrinated) 'virologists' say the covid virus exists, then it must be true. It's an open and shut case according to Steve, who btw is a terrible debater.
Hi Steve. I remember this topic coming up a couple of years ago on your forum. It was my opinion then and now that the "Viruses Don't Exist" crowd are actually psyops operatives working in conjunction with the Vaccine companies/lobbies/government to distract attention away from the staggering deaths and injuries the covid vaccines have wrought on humanity.
While your guest appears to be a MD most of those in this cult are not, but they excel in talking in circles, making assertions with virtually no evidence, and reject proof no matter how well documented it is.
Best to ignore these folks. In my opinion they have some kind of nefarious agenda and are only interested in disrupting the flow of information.
I was somewhere around 90% persuaded in the virus no virus argument until I watched this debate but I'm now fully convinced. Dr. Kaufman has nailed it to the extent it can be at this stage. Thanks to all for airng this.
I would really love to get to the bottom of this and have a completely open mind to there being no viruses, some illnesses being cause by a virus and others (that we think are) not, or all of them (that we are told are) being caused by a virus. Answering the fundamental question of whether viruses exist, and if they cause (rather than being the result of) disease is so important to our future health and healthcare. Please do everything you can to curiously and honestly get to the truth.
I just want to applaud your allegiance, Steve, to good-faith vigorous debate and dialogue. "It doesn't matter who wins the debate." Real scientists readily trash each other's theories in a joint quest for Truth, without resentment. Thank you. 👍😎
Thank you to both Dr. Kauffman and Steve for the discussion. Before 2020 I had never heard anyone question the virus existence.
With due respects to both sides for seeking truth, it is clear that the debate arises because of visual limitations even with the best optical microscopes. Observation by electron microscopes on the other hand likely involves multiple steps that are in question by "no virus" side.
The genetic sequencing likewise involves multiple steps removing the final results a few steps removed from the original specimen.
The argument by Steve and the "virus exist" side is in the consistency of genetic sequencing results and apparent contagious nature.
Niether side can reject that objects do exist that are smaller than biological cells.
The difference between the two sides is whether there exist objects called "virus" that get replicated. For the "virus exist" side, there has to be genetic information for the replication. For the "no virus" side, the genetic information is simply a byproduct from the multiple steps involved and is generated by computer construction minus any known genetic sequences that could be in the specimen. I am not familiar with even the most basics in genetic sequencing but understand that's how the computer reconstruction might be done.
If the basics involved in sample preparation to obtaining final results can be explained to the public or told where to look, we might begin to see the strengths and weaknesses on each side of the argument. Physical limitations on observations are real that we have to rely on observations far removed from the original specimen. And, knowing the certainty on each step most crucial.
In my mind the existence of viruses is far better substantiated than sequencing one via current methods. Most important I remember FIRST HAND chickenpox and measles sweeping through my classrooms back in the 1950s. Never got it again either!
Further, fake vaccines depend on CLAIMING they know how to sequence viruses. The existence of viruses is a separate issue from how to deal with them.
My third daughter had ChickenPox when she was a toddler and a friend of mine brought her three children over so they could get ChickenPox by sharing lollipops with my daughter. My friend’s children never got Chickenpox.
Explain that please.
I have dozens of situations like this that I have witnessed throughout my life.
What's the story about the PCR tests being useless for detecting the virus? They over-amplified the samples to produce useless readings... my dog's doo doo tested positive! Then not positive the next day...off and on results... Kerry Mullis, now dead, inventor of the PCR said it should not be used the way they used it.
The title of this article itself is circular reasoning. You can’t say that millions of people are showing signs of COVID until you first prove viruses exist. Millions of people may be ill, but saying they all have an illness caused by a virus as a means of proving viruses exist is just bad logic.
I think we can agree with Dr Kaufman that the sequence does not come from an isolated virus. It does indeed come from a mix of genetic material of unknown origin which I believe does appear to be somewhat prevalent in people exhibiting flu like symptoms. Therefore the PCR test will likely test positive during infection and tail off after infection but cannot distinguish between flu and c19.
If you create a document which answers 4 or more of the questions posed in this article, please post a link to it here along with your name and your scientific credentials (esp your experience in genetics and/or virology). That way it will be easy for everyone to find. Links only please. If your document doesn't meet the conditions, your link will be deleted to keep this area focused. Serious answers only. I really want to see the explanations.
If you claim that everyone is collaborating to fake the data, for example, you should include the actual evidence of mass collusion if you want people to take your allegations seriously.
If you have evidence that genomic sequencing is fake science, simply provide a dataset of actual reads that can be assembled to get arbitrary genomic sequences and specify the program that was used for the assembly.
"Scientific credentials" can be anything you think would be helpful to people reading your response, e.g., your h-index, number of published papers in genomics, experience with gene sequencing, experience in virology, experience with electron microscopy, experience in lab with cell cultures, history in working with samples from ATCC, books you've written on the topic, etc. If you have no scientific credentials at all, that is fine. You can just state that.
The glaring issue that needs resolving is what is meant by viral 'isolation' and 'purification'? Until then the whole discussion is pointless.
No Steve. YOU need to engage in debunking the actual anti-virus arguments! You ignored and failed to debunk Dr. Kaufman's description of the procedures virologists do to allegedly sequence a virus. I tend to credit virology because nature is "red in tooth and claw" at the macro level and like to be so at the micro level. Whether viruses are "alive or not" is another question.
https://normanjames.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/145745144/share-center
Koch's Postulates: Bacterial Boundaries, Viral Visions - Unraveling Enigmas Beyond Classical Framework
Rethinking Viruses: Questioning Classical Paradigms
Scientific credentials? What’s that? The same credentials you have???
I'm still waiting for some to answer my questions above if viruses don't exist.
There are over 1,000 comments yet AFAIK, no one has explained how, for example, all the sites (which used denovo sequencing from scratch) could come up with virtually identical sequences on something that doesn't exist. How can that happen? The sequences are 100% determined by what is in the sample. There isn't collusion or a "template." If you think there is, please show us the evidence. WGS doesn't use a template. It is uses randomly generated primers. The only way to get the same sequence is if the sample is genetically identical. I'm surprised this is even a topic of discussion. If I take the same sample to 100 different labs, I'll get the same sequence.
I have laid out all my questions in this article. I've invited Dr. Kaufman to respond to each of the points with a document. No interruptions and no time pressure. I look forward to seeing his response.
Once that is done, we'll have another session with experts on his side and my side.
I'll watch from the sidelines.
Global synchrony of influenza
Influenza Epidemics in the United States, France, and Australia, 1972–1997
Viboud et al found that influenza outbreaks in the US were closely correlated with those in France. There was synchrony in time and correlation in severity (excess deaths).
The peaks in the epidemics were very closely linked with a median time difference between them of 3.5 days. Sometimes the US peaked first and sometimes it was France, with each happening about 50% of the time.
The timing of the 'season' differed from year to year and had more variability than the difference between the two countries. There were no similar correlations with Australia at a 6 month offset.
Measles exhibits similar synchrony which stops after vaccination programs are introduced: "Our study nevertheless strongly suggests that influenza epidemics are correlated in amplitude and synchronized in timing in the Northern Hemisphere, and collection and analysis of additional data is underway in other countries of Europe and North America. Pre-vaccination measles epidemics in different locales of the United States and the United Kingdom were also highly correlated in time and space, a situation that evolved to the observed absence of correlation in the last 2 decades after the level of vaccination increased from 50% to 90%"
With regards to transmissible diseases I would describe these results as "highly unexpected".
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/1/02-0705_article
If every researcher follows the same procedure, why would you expect they would all get different results unless viruses are real? You need to debunk the hypothesis they might be sequencing something ALWAYS or OFTEN found in humans who have pneumonia.
Steve. YOU need to deign to discuss the computer assisted "sequencing"procedure Dr. Kaufman delineated in the debate. You kept asking him for definitions of words and phrases! NOT IMPRESSIVE! Showed you as "authority" oriented on this issue!
https://normanjames.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/145745144/share-center
Koch's Postulates: Bacterial Boundaries, Viral Visions - Unraveling Enigmas Beyond Classical Framework
Rethinking Viruses: Questioning Classical Paradigms
Steve,
The last time you checked, how was your team manipulating the viruses to make them more…whatever…without isolating them first? If your team was aiming to manipulate the genome of a virus to make it more …whatever…, how could they do so, unless they isolated the virus and its genome first??? You can’t gain function of anything unless you know the function and the cause of the function first? Get it?
my team? can you clarify what you are talking about? This is news to me! thanks.
Let me get this straight: what you are saying you’ve never been to a lab???
The sequences exist but they just are not viruses, they aren't transmissible.
The fact that everybody has the same sequences does not imply that they are the cause of disease or that they are transmissible
Disease is strongly correlated with a change in the weather just like your grandma told you..
https://library-of-atlantis.com/2024/06/16/the-no-virus-debate/
why are there millions of near identical copies in over 100 countries? Were they spread by a plane drop? in the water?
how do these sequences grow inside people over time?
You still don't understand how PCR works!
With sufficient cycles it can magnify a tiny fragment into a huge amount, and because they started with a fragment they will find "near identical copies".
Have you studied the Gallops Island (Rosenau) Experiment, replicated ~67 times, that shows that 'flu is not transmissible?
Sorry friend, you are blinded by your bias!
What are those sequences made of?
They are computer-generated sequences! You cannot have a sequence for anything if you haven't isolated it - that's science 101.
Evidence of that?
And how do the computer generated sequences replicate inside of your body so there are more copies over time?
Are you claiming that they used some computer to generate sequences?
So how come they have sequences without isolating anything?
Also teach me about science because it seems that I know nothing about it. Is science about verification of what leads to observed natural phenomenon by experimentation on independent variables?
Yes or No?
That's exactly true! Go and read any of these papers, they use a "genetic data bank of viruses" to generate a new sequence! However, they have never isolated a single virus to create the bank!
Read this brilliant explanation to understand the depth of this fraud:
https://conspiracysarah.substack.com/p/perhaps-the-most-important-work-of?publication_id=1042216&triedRedirect=true
Again. What is source of data to generate those sequences?
Do you realize that I already refuted this project from your link after Alec put it on internet?
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://x.com/DrAseemMalhotra/status/1802045575036039620__;!!Mih3wA!GKVx9LF8Pw9fLcVvrvyQTZcLIcBuyoT_FpxIT0A_8H_qrFQyu5zoWFgKNR2Z8SKtSV7ORvqjBMLlkcIL4USJAn2JbXc$
Nice. Pfizer hid the dead bodies in their trial. That makes perfect sense.
It's nice and makes perfect sense to you. That is not a surprise.
Steve, I think Naomi Wolf has one published book out on the Pfizer data drafted by her group of scientists, doctors and statisticians, etc., and another will come out soon. That data has to be quite striking.
JJ Couey can explain it to you.
I've left a message for him.
De Novo Sequencing by which company? Illumina? Tell me you're not seriously going to mention this without also mentioning the obvious financial conflicts of interest that this company (and other companies) have and the direct incentive they have to FIND whatever they want to find.
I'm talking about the same Illumina that had former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb on their Board of Directors. Gottlieb was also on the Board of Directors at Pfizer, along with his buddy, James Smith (who spent the bulk of his career as President and CEO of Reuters). Smith was the Chairman of the Board.
When Gottlieb was FDA Commissioner, the FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization to Illumina for a "Sequencing-Based COVID-19 Diagnostic Test"(In other words, he granted Emergency Use Authorization to himself, or his other company, Pfizer). Then his buddy James Smith’s Company (Reuters) "fact-checks" in their favor.
So Scott Gottlieb sits on the Board of Pfizer (which stands to make money via the manufacturing and sale of vaccines based on the successful sequence of coronavirus) and his other company is providing the machine that does the alleged “sequencing” - which they all profit handsomely from. This is a direct, undeniable conflict of interest.
Then when honest scientists explain why it wasn’t property isolated or sequenced, James Smith uses his fake fact-checking company to “debunk” these claims so that these criminals can continue scamming the world and making more money. This is also a direct conflict of interest.
And you're participating in this crime, Steve. Without mentioning the company that actually manufactures these fraudulent "sequencing" machines, how do you expect ANYONE who has done their homework to take you seriously?
de novo sequencing by ANYONE.
where is your evidence that the machines are biased? Please post a link. that would be helpful. thanks.
You really don't know how any of this works do you?
You don't really seem to know much about anything. You might want to start looking around for better advisers who can at least make the quackery sound more intelligible.
Where's your evidence that the machines are legitimate? Post a link. That would be helpful. Shouldn't you at least be skeptical about these machines, since they are manufactured by these shady companies and the entire "sequencing process" was fully controlled by the same organizations that are trying to sell vaccines? You're shilling hard for the vaccine companies, Steve. Everyone here can see that.
Machines follow a program from a programmer - who is paid by an owner - who is part of a group/class. Of course they have an agenda- what an incredibly naïve question - have we not just lived though the greatest psyop of our lives..
He doesn't know anything.
The machine just shows up and magically starts creating sequences.
Your level of dishonesty is really quite extraordinary, Steve. You throw around these terms like “muh sequencing” and wave your magic wand without actually telling your readers about the real fraud of sequencing machines. So, let’s talk about ”sequencing” with another example from the Lancet:
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733
In the paper above, they claim they “sequenced the virus” using the ARTIC Protocol which comes from the ARTIC Network. The ARTIC Network is funded by the Wellcome Trust, founded by pharmaceutical pioneer Henry Wellcome, current investment portfolio worth well over 30 billion UK pounds.
Wellcome is heavily invested in promoting zero-carbon schemes and pushing Agenda 2030 Climate Change lies and propaganda. They are also active participants in GAVI, CEPI and WHO.
The Wellcome Fund has a direct financial conflict of interest in that IF they can successfully “sequence” a “virus” - these findings would lead to the development of a vaccine from which they will all reap the rewards and profit hundreds of billions of dollars. Their director is Jeremy Farrer who is a direct member of SAGE, which is a body of the UK Government.
The COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator (CTA) started in March 2020 with support from Wellcome, Mastercard and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
At the Wellcome Sanger Institute, 200 staff volunteered to contribute to sequencing the viral genomes in 180,000 samples from Covid-19 infections. The institute helped fund the effort which was part of the Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium.
Some of their direct shareholders include Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Amazon, Visa, Berkshire Hathaway, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Cisco, Alphabet/Google, Apple, Facebook, Unilver, etc.
The ARTIC NETWORK and Wellcome had a direct financial incentive to “find” a virus or variant via “sequencing” - If they couldn’t find one, then GAVI, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the rest of these racketeers that you pretend you’re fighting against would fire them and hire another company whose machine WOULD find them.
The fact that you make NO MENTION WHATSOEVER about who funded these so called “sequencing” efforts, where the sequencing machines come from or the conflicts of interest that all these folks have in “finding” whatever they want to find, betrays your agenda, Steve. All of the sequencing efforts were produced by the VERY SAME PEOPLE you PRETEND YOU’RE FIGHTING AGAINST.
You’re a liar and a fraud and you’ve exposed yourself for all to see.
muh sequencing? Never heard of that.
Where is your EVIDENCE that the sequences can't be replicated?
"Muh Sequencing" means "faith based" or "authority based" belief in the valididty of whole virus sequencing. I'd like to see you do a totally detailed exposition of how it is done. Really! I'm not saying this to discredit you.
You should bet HEAVILY against me in the experiment I will propose to ascertain whether viruses exist.
And you completely fail to explain why labs which are completely independent of all special interests find the same sequence.
How do you explain that?
They all use the same methods.
Imagine locking down the whole world for a computer software virus and calling it a pandemic.
That is what they did. Imagine when all these people find out they took a vaccine for a COMPUTER SOFTWARE VIRUS.
The “full genome” of any virus is not obtained by sequencing an entire intact “virus” that they have isolated, the product of cell culture experiment tainted with multiple sources of genetic material is taken and assembled via computer program into a “full genome.”
Genomic sequencing is a software trick. There is a virus (or whatever) template and you fit the nucleotides on this template, and voila-a new "virus" is created! It is a model on a computer that is 100% fabricated out of thin air.
Whatever one thinks about the "no virus" question it is an important question to work through as the likes of CEPI, GAVI, WHO, CSIS etc. and the governments run by financial parasites have made it perfectly clear that "waging endless war against viruses" is THE next phase of the Global War on 'Fill In the Blank' with copious funding (think trillions) going to these pathogenic Ponzi Schemes.
They plan to loot the public for the foreseeable future using "The Virus™" as their raison d'être. This is all being "war gamed" as we speak with plans for this to be THE cash cow for the Biosecurity Complex for the next many, many years.
So yes, this is more than a little relevant and goes far beyond the Covid Con.
Beyond the scientific and intellectual necessity of examining the entire discussion around germ theory the political and economic consequences simply can't be overstated. Why this discussion sets some people off is curious and quite irrational.
I am on familiar terms with the leading proponents of "no virus" and I can say without question that these are some extraordinarily thorough individuals who approach this with the utmost intellectual rigor.
It must also be noted that virtually all, if not all, of these individuals assert that "viruses have never been scientifically proven to exist" rather than the blanket statement, "viruses don't exist." There is a big difference between these two statements and again none of these individuals have come to this position casually. The burden of proof is on the claimant of the positive claim that an entity X does exist - those that argue that viruses exist nearly always turn this obligation on it's head for the obvious reason that they don't have evidence to support that claim.
For any who have looked into this with any detail to attention and honest scientific exactitude I can't see they could come away from their analysis with anything other than the conclusion that the process by which viruses are allegedly isolated is at best utterly preposterous when not outright fraudulent.
It's also extremely important to understand the history of how we got here.
Virology/Germ Theory have never been unique, solid scientific explorations or discoveries they were political maneuvers that were established by some of the more scurrilous scientific and political actors of the day, as is the case today, and supported financially and institutionally by the wealthiest robber-barons in the world- who then built another financial empire (the medical industry) on the backs of this quack theory.
The entire history of what is called "disease" is built on a foundation of lies and these lies are invented for less than savory purposes and to conceal the real causes of illness.
🎯🎯🎯🎯
Since your own definition of a "virus" does not require proof that it is the sole cause of disease, then this is a circular argument that can never produce any data that is worth a crap.
People are trying to understand WHAT is actually causing disease in humans. The Control Group proved that vaccine-exposure is causing well-over 90% of the chronic illnesses. And the CDC proved that 94% of those who purportedly died of covid, already had an average of 2.6 comorbidities, i.e., chronic, life-shortening health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancers, major organ disorders, life-threatening allergies, etc..
So logic would tell us that the "thing" that puts people MOST at risk of dying, is getting injected with the older "soft-kill" vaccines, which we already know are responsible for MOST of these "comorbidities."
Ever consider the possibility that DNA fragments are ubiquitous? Ever consider the possibility that if a company has already patented a vaccine for a particular "disease" they're going to be highly motivated to claim an "outbreak" or a "pandemic" and start blaming sicknesses and deaths on that particular DNA fragment, one which they already know many people are already carrying, whether they're sick or not?
#1 ... "And the CDC proved that 94% of those who purportedly died of covid, already had an average of 2.6 comorbidities, i.e., chronic, life-shortening health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, cancers, major organ disorders, life-threatening allergies, etc.."
Thus, and after exhausting research, the biggest problem of these vaccines, is that it destroys the immune system and the immune system response mechanisms ... It has been shown, explained, and documented by those who are on the right side of history, and have been in that field for decades ...
#2 ... All major corporations, especially the nefarious ones, sell you problems, because they already have (and know) the answers, solutions, or cures ... Actually, a powerful strategic approach for anyone in business, and isn't nefarious ...
#3 ... I cannot verify this, but I was told in a video, 7-9 countries have gone to their supreme courts, with a COVID type case ... In all cases, the team that went to court won, because no pharmaceutical company could show proof, or prove the virus actually was real, and existed ... So, it was negligence when they harmed or killed someone, and they cannot prove why they did that ...
Nice expansion on the real issues here. What EXACTLY actually killed these people? Seems some people never want to address this particular question, claiming that if they can identify a certain "sequence" then this somehow proves what made someone sick or killed them.
It is my contention that even if we assume these DNA fragments are real, (i.e., that they "exist') it still doesn't prove that they are the cause of the diseases/deaths we're being told they caused. Finding vultures circling over a sick person in the desert, or even finding them ripping the person's flesh later, is not evidence that the vultures kill the person.
I LOVE throwing this line back at pharma: "Association is not causation." ;-)
Of course, when pharma uses that line, they're denying that, even though 80% of deaths reported by VAERS after injection are within HOURS of that injection, it must only be a coincidence. Even when someone drops dead within minutes of injection, pharma claims it's just a coincidence, due to the fact so MANY people (within the 99.74% vaccinated population) die in similar ways.
There's never any LOGIC to what is claimed by the medical/pharma industrial complex. And we know why.
Which labs? Which machines are they using? Do you think that intelligent people here can't see that what you're doing is actually LEGITIMIZING the fraudulent sequencing process for the direct benefit of the vaccine industry?
The game is up, Steve. It's clear what side you're really on.
Sin Lee's lab verified all their ATCC samples matched up using a different sequencing method (Sanger sequencing). He's VERY independent.
But help me out... where is the HONEST lab which found a discrepancy? Please name it. Please don't keep this secret!
The "like" ratios on your own substack should be a clue as to how off you are on this.
Begging the question / Circular reasoning / False Premise. First you should answer - WHICH SEQUENCING MACHINE did Sin Lee's Lab use and explain in detail how the sequencing process works. You're protecting Big Pharma and the Vaccine Industry. Why?
Finding a sequence is not evidence that it is the cause of disease.
that's right. You need to apply the bradford hill criteria. Which criteria do you believe is not satisfied?
Remarkably, the sequence always comes BEFORE the disease.
Do you have a counterexample?
And again, there are MANY "sequences" that are NEVER tested for, which ALSO come "before" disease. Sometimes, when a person is weak and getting sick, and/or dying, it causes all sorts of things to "express" in their genetics. So you can CHOOSE a particular code to test for, and then CLAIM that this is the DNA fragment that CAUSED the disease/death.
And your statement that this sequence ALWAYS comes before the disease is entirely FALSE. Many people test "positive" for the sequence and are in no way "diseased" nor ever become diseased. The fact that SOME of the people who test positive later get sick, is NOT evidence that this particular particle, standing alone, is what CAUSED them to become "diseased."
And once again, vultures can be found circling BEFORE the person collapses in the desert. This is not evidence that the vultures are the cause of death.
Because all humans have sequences very similar to SARS-COV-2, within the error of the test. If you take enough sample and amplify it sufficiently you will get a positive match from most or all humans.
can you show me the blast results on that one? Post a link to it. Thanks. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
Steve Steve. I'll bet you can explain in detail how a light sensing mouse works. Can't you see you are just accepting on faith that whole virus genetic sequencing makes sense? And my bet currently is that viruses exist. Every living thing is attacked on every level so I presume something like the presumed virus exists on the micro level.
The trick they pull on you is not the detection of genetic material. They bamboozle you by making you believe that the genetic material they detect somehow causes disease. It’s bullshit - and total misdirection to shift the blame from the EMF and heavy metal poisoning of the population, to a piece of material that can be found on millions of people (with or without symptoms) - dummy. You should’ve known as soon as the pushed the asymptomatic nonsense- but you can’t teach common sense to indoctrinated folk programmed to believe in fake bought and paid for science.
Steve, you can't answer this question as it stands because it assumes the test results accurately reflect what they claim to show. We need to move past this assumption to debate the argument properly. The assumption fails for two reasons:
Not all people who test positive are actually sick with the disease.
Some people with identical symptoms do not test positive.
Essentially, the test designed to detect the virus shows the same results under a microscope for millions of people, whether they are sick or not. What is claimed to be a genetic sequence is inferred from something they cannot see. They are interpreting noise as the virus because it fits their expectations. Why do you trust the test when it has proven unreliable? Moreover, this unreliability undermines your claim that Koch's postulates have been met.
Sorry, where has the WGS test proved to be unreliable? Where is the paper on that one? I missed it. Thanks!
I have no idea whether or not a paper exists that proves or disproves the accuracy of a WGS test and I don’t care. All I know is that it doesn’t prove the existence of a virus. And why would you trust evidence from any arm of an establishment that brought us the deadly vaccines that you are now so passionately against? Genome sequencing as a method to prove something is there that cannot be seen is pseudo science. The corruption behind this has been in the making for over a century and it has seeped in to so many other industries and organizations that is impossible to trust anything that cooperates with it in any way. As you know, your own school is one example in many. You can bet the sequencing for Covid 19 was well underway before the disease was even announced.
Is the WGS test proven reliable for identifying a particular thing that "exists?"
Well the sun exists. And there are basically an infinite number of DNA chains that exist or can be made to exist. Some things are ubiquitous, and yes, they do "exist." So what?
The fact a thing exists, is not evidence that it is the sole cause of any particular phenomenon.
Great answer! Kirsh assumes the PCR test is telling us the truth about something, when in fact the inventor of the PCR staunchly denied it was capable of diagnosing a viral infection.
Can you provide a reference to him saying it is incapable of diagnosing a viral infection? I missed it. Just put the link here. Thanks!
Here you are, Kary Mullis on PCR and it’s misuse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPs86XB1OjE
"RT-PCR is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present."
Page 6 "under standing PCR a guide for healthcare professionals" from HMG.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf#:~:text=Cycle%20threshold%20%28Ct%29%20is%20a%20semi-quantitative%20value%20that,much%20viral%20genetic%20material%20is%20in%20the%20sample.
Hi Andy! Thank you for the likes! And thank you for providing this link. It's a really interesting document. However, unfortunately, it is not what Kirsch is looking for in his comment above yours to which you replied. What Steve has asked for in his comment above does NOT exist! Steve is asking for a "reference" SPECIFICALLY to *KARY MULLIS* "saying (PCR) is incapable of diagnosing a viral infection". It IS true that such a reference and such a quote do NOT exist! For more information, please review the comments of mine that you have liked.
We now know for a fact that Kirsch is capable of acknowledging when something does NOT exist! LOL! Kirsch should broaden this ability to include acknowledging -and finally CONCEDING- that phantom viruses like SARS-COV2 do not exist! However, Kirsch is PROTECTING the pharma/biotech/vaccine industries, and, as such, his MASTERS in those industries will not allow him to do that!
www.bitchute.com/video/gabkfjJA6tjY
PCR cannot diagnose anything. It can only find if your sequence is in the specimen (with such and such certainty). It does not look for viruses. Only short nucleic acid chains. And it is not a quantitative test either.
Are you claiming that existence of nucleotides is proven?
Okay, so now you've resorted to adding me to the "no virus exists" camp, (which I NEVER stated) in order to avoid my REAL argument, which is that I'm still waiting for any hard evidence that these particular particles "sequences", or DNA fragments, standing ALONE are the ACTUAL root/underlying CAUSE of disease.
I do not CARE what people choose to call these particles. When I challenged you to a debate, I stated that I would concede that these particles "exist" as the foundation, so that we could proceed to the REAL issue, which is whether or not we have hard evidence that these particular particles, (currently being identified with the PCR test) standing alone, are in fact the CAUSE OF DISEASE.
It is an outright LIE to claim that I have stated I "don't believe" that these particles "exist" at all. People choose to call them "viruses" and I won't ever argue that point, because I don't CARE what the particle is, or what anyone calls it. I only care whether or not I can see hard evidence that the particle (or substance) is in fact the CAUSE of disease.
Lying about what I have stated is a VERY POOR method of attempting to win a debate. I believe the issue of the "existence" of a particle/DNA fragment, or "virus" etc., is actually IRRELEVANT and nothing more than a red herring. If you're going to outright lie about my statements then there's nowhere to go from here.
Are you merely responding to someone else and got me confused with them?
Here's a Q & A with Kary Mullis: https://rumble.com/v3bnr9s-kary-mullis-inventor-of-the-pcr-test-you-can-find-anything-in-anybody.html
This one is even more enlightening:
https://rumble.com/ve85kz-covid-19-nobel-prize-winner-pcr-test-inventor-kary-mullis-exposes-myth-of-a.html
These should enlighten you. The PCR was ABUSED to make the argument that we needed vaccines to protect us from "viruses."
PCR is a technique for producing millions of copies of any tiny fragment of genetic information from billions of building blocks. So basically, you can build whatever the hell you want to, (any "sequence") once you give it the INSTRUCTIONS for building it, SO THAT you can say someone is "infected" with a virus/particle that you'd like to say they're infected with.
JOY! STOP INVOKING MULLIS! He was one of THEM (the establishment)!! Once again, I was actually THERE at that Q & A seminar!! LISTEN TO ME! You are NOT helping your arguments at ALL by citing MULLIS!!! STOP IT!! PCR is DEFINITELY B.S., but STOP RELYING ON MULLIS to show that fact!!
What are you on about? Don't you think its odd that he was the most outspoken individual against Faucci and the use of PCR to dectect disease.... and he "died" a few months before Covid. Would not have looked good as him in one of the disinformaiton dozen. The actual inventor of the machine used to scam us all saying it cant be sued for that.
I am not "invoking him" (I think you mean edifying). Also, I gave the link to the Q & A and also a lengthy interview were he tells even more of the truth about what his invention ACTUALLY does and how it does it. He says he was shocked to find out the FDA was claiming the PCR could be used to diagnose an infection.
It is upon the reliability of the PCR test that Kirsch relies to bolster his argument that a virus called "CV-19" is what made people sick and dead.
WTF are you so afraid of this guy's name? Some of what he says makes sense and he does know what he's talking about on the PCR subject, even if some of the other stuff he says doesn't make sense. He admits that the PCR just rebuilds copies from a bit of genetic code using BILLIONS of other "building blocks" sourced from OTHER genetic materials (tissues). Does that sound like a reliable way to find out what the hell is going on with anything?
He also explains that the whole "HIV" scam was just that, a scam to get people to take deadly drugs. He claims this "HIV" particle was never even shown to be the cause of AIDS.
People are so fully hung up on nomenclature (what a particle is being called) that they completely lose sight of the real issue, which is simply "show me evidence that this particular particle IS in fact the cause disease." Kirsch turns to the reliability of the PCR test as his evidence that a particular particle is the cause of disease.
Everyone seems to be engaged in the WRONG argument. Particles exist. Sequences exist. And the "no virus" camp is claiming there are no particles or sequences, which is the WRONG argument. And the other side of the argument is that the very existence of the particles and the sequences is evidence that "viruses" exist. I don't CARE about any of that. What I care about is the LIE that these particular particles are the actual cause of disease.
You want to argue that no particles exist, and that THIS means there are no "viruses" and it's an irrelevant position. What is causing disease, or NOT causing it, is MY argument, and I do NOT need to join a religion, or ascribe to the theory that particles don't exist at all, to make it. The argument that these particles (or pieces of genetic code) do not exist at all, just sounds silly to me.
You really should stop jumping up and down and YELLING to make your point. Get some manners.
I've seen these dozens of time. Ever time, I can't find the part where he says "PCR cannot be used to find the presence of a virus." Where exactly does he say that? I keep missing it.
DISEASE is NOT virus. A PCR machine cannot find disease. Absolutely agree. He says that.
NOWHERE does he say it cannot detect a virus.
I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles are in fact the cause of disease.
One of the interesting points Kary Mullis makes, (I believe in the 2nd link I gave you) is that he was involved in the "HIV" scam in the early days, and has first-hand personal knowledge of the fact that this bit of genetic code named "HIV" was NOT actually the cause of "AIDS."
And he does state that his PCR technology relies upon genetic code of the chosen particle to be used as an instruction to rebuild itself using building blocks gleaned from billions of other materials. Rebuilding copies of a bit of genetic code is NOT evidence that it causes disease.
So if 90% of the population ALREADY has this same bit of code, (already obtained it, one way or another) and it's a code that gets expressed more fully when a person suffers malnutrition and/or some type of toxic assault, or even just chronic stress, we should test these people for this bit of genetic code to find out if they're sick? If someone IS sick, or is NOT sick, do we really need to see what type of genetic codes they're carrying to understand WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SICK?
We've been testing perfectly healthy people to see if they're sick. And if they happen to carry a particular fragment of genetic code, we will say they are sick/infected, in order to STRIP THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS, isolate them from family, drug them into oblivion, and ultimately murder them in hospitals. Did you know that 75% of vaccinated kids are now testing "positive" for an active "covid infection?" It's weird. Many questions in there.
Turns out a great many people who are sick have a "load" of MANY genetic codes that are never tested for. But we believe a particular one (chosen one) must be the CAUSE of their illness? Locating a particular code is NOT evidence that this particular strand of code cause their illness.
I know of far too many people who arrived at the hospital WITHOUT "covid" symptoms, but who urgently needed help with other issues, and who were tested and got a positive with the PCR. They ended up TRAPPED, isolated, (from witnesses) and "treated" with Fauci's deadly protocols, which turned out to be the CAUSE of their deaths. We already knew that Remdisivir killed close to 50% of those exposed to it BEFORE that murdering scum pushed it for covid. And of course, once someone tested positive for covid, their deaths were called covid deaths.
Remember, association is not causation. Just because a fungus shows up on a dead log, doesn't mean the fungus killed the tree. Just because vultures are circling, doesn't mean that they later caused that person's death, even though we DID witness the vulture violently ripping their tissues apart and eating them.
So even if the PCR test can correctly identify the presence of a bit of genetic code, (and rebuild copies of it from other materials so that they can claim a large enough "load" is there to constitute an "infection") this is still not evidence that this fragment is the actual CAUSE of disease.
We all fell for the lie that "cholesterol" was the enemy too. It just happens to show up when tissue has been injured. Without it, we would die MUCH sooner, as our arteries are taking a great deal of pressure, and when the tissues are breaking down (due to toxins and poor diet) cholesterol is there to HELP us, by reinforcing the tissues. We now have a growing body of evidence that heart disease can be REVERSED with a high cholesterol carnivore diet.
So finding cholesterol "at the scene of the crime" and deciding that it caused the injuries, is the same as saying cops are responsible for all of the crime "cuz I keep seeing them at crime scenes."
It seems NEITHER side of this "virus" debate even understands what matters here. What matters to me, is whether we actually understand the underlying CAUSE of disease, not whether a particular genetic sequence can be identified and proven to "exist."
Irrelevant. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Nucleotides are not proven. The same with viruses.
Thus there is no gold standard for PCR. Therefore PCR is not a valid method.
This is not accurate! Dr. Kary Mullis' EXACT words were: "It (PCR) doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you, or anything like that"...!! I was THERE when Mullis uttered these words back in 1997. I helped to produce the seminar where Mullis said this! Mullis BELIEVED in viruses, and he DEFINITELY believed that his PCR could INDEED detect viruses. Mullis was PART of the PROBLEM! Please see:
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc
2. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage
3. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
I just know that the PCR is NOT capable of identifying whether someone is actually infected OR contagious, let alone that they will ever get sick. So this defeats any arguments that the PCR can be used to prove the existence of a virus -within the definition that these particles are the ACTUAL cause of disease.
This person's ability to use a test to identify a particle has nothing to do with proving that the identified particle is the cause of disease.
PCR *IS* capable of detecting a virus, even though you think they don't exist.
Shot yourself in the foot there Kirsch, here's a quote & its source;
"RT-PCR is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present."
Page 6 "under standing PCR a guide for healthcare professionals" from HMG. link below
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf#:~:text=Cycle%20threshold%20%28Ct%29%20is%20a%20semi-quantitative%20value%20that,much%20viral%20genetic%20material%20is%20in%20the%20sample.
No, it isn't.
PCR only synthesizes a chain according to the sequence you provide. It does not 'detect' anything.
And the whole genome of a virus would be too long for this purpose.
They only use relatively short sequences to try to find them in the specimen.
Prove it.
If an identified particle doesn't make you sick, and if MANY people end up with the symptoms of the sickness associated with the particle but test NEGATIVE for that particle, where is the hard evidence that this particular particle is actually what caused sickness?
Again, it keeps coming back to one side trying to make those who question all of this seem like lunatics for denying the existence of the particles, when in fact, what's being denied, is that there is any hard and direct evidence to prove that these particular particles are IN FACT what's causing disease.
So if your definition of a "virus" says that it is not necessarily proven to be the cause of disease, well this would be different than what the "there's no virus" camp is saying. Their definition is the traditional one (which was changed just a few years ago) to now NOT include that it must have been proven to actually be the CAUSE of disease. Remember, association is not causation.
Maggots and even vultures are frequently seen where there is death. This is NOT evidence that they maggots or the vultures are the CAUSE of death. Vultures are also seen circling BEFORE death. Still doesn't prove the vultures caused it. With a 97% rate of false positives, I am discouraged you would support the use of PCR testing to tell us what's going on here.
I don't disagree with your latest post, Joy! READ MY LINKS in my previous post! I'm a FREAKIN' DISSIDENT myself!! However, you need to STOP INVOKING KARY MULLIS!! He BELIEVED IN VIRUSES! He was WRONG about that and OTHER THINGS! Mullis was NOT a hero to our old "AIDS" dissident movement!! Far from it! So, just STOP THE HERO WORSHIP OF MULLIS PLEASE!!
You need to STOP falsely accusing me of "worshipping" him. I am simply pointing to the fact he is very clear that his PCR test if NOT the way to determine the CAUSE of any disease in a human. And this matters because Steve's entire argument for the "existence" of the virus, relies upon the reliability of the PCR. Mullis may have "proof" that a DNA fragment (particle) "exists" and both he, and others, may choose to call it a "virus" but this is IRRELEVANT to whether or not a DNA fragment STANDING ALONE is the cause of disease in anyone.
You are correct that he believed in viruses and that PCR could detect viruses. People refuse to believe it. They believe what they want to believe even when there is no evidence to support that believe which is what is happening here.
Phage therapy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy
"Phage therapy, viral phage therapy, or phagotherapy is the therapeutic use of bacteriophages for the treatment of pathogenic bacterial infections.[1][2][3] This therapeutic approach emerged at the beginning of the 20th century but was progressively replaced by the use of antibiotics in most parts of the world after the Second World War. Bacteriophages, known as phages, are a form of virus[4] that attach to bacterial cells and inject their genome into the cell.[5] The bacteria's production of the viral genome interferes with its ability to function, halting the bacterial infection.[5] The bacterial cell causing the infection is unable to reproduce and instead produces additional phages.[4] Phages are very selective in the strains of bacteria they are effective against.[5]"
Phages are not proven to exist. No one has observed them, identified them, isolated them and experimented on them.
Bacteriophages (phages) have been extensively isolated from various environments for over a century. This is well known.
Then provide irrefutable evidence of them.
I had some comedic banter with you lately,
But the facts are that:
-alleged biological viruses have never been proven,
-alleged nucleotides (RNA, DNA, genomes, genes, genetic sequences) have never been proven,
-alleged infectious diseases have never been proven,
-alleged immune system has never been proven,
-alleged pathogenic bacteria has never been proven.
Your beliefs won't change those facts.
We are still waiting for irrefutable evidence from you and your experts.
Or maybe do you want put money on the betting table? I am going to offer more than you and your millionaire friends are able to offer.
So Steve, the ball is on your side. And all odds are against you.
No the ball is on your side, you claimed they do not exist, there is plenty of evidence about to suggest otherwise. You are the one who claims it is all lies. Prove it if you want to be judge and jury. I would suggest you read Mike Yeadons response below.
SD, you wrote * & I quote; "you claimed they do not exist," actually Kordelas states;.........."never been proven".
You are straw manning me and it is a logical fallacy by misrepresenting my argument which is things which are claimed to be real are not proven to be real. Thus the burden of proof is still on those who claim them being real as per logic.
Mike Yeadon learned from me that viruses are not proven few years ago when I asked him if viruses are proven with adherence to scientific method.
I would suggest you not bothering people if you have no valid arguments to present next time..
This therapy has been used in Russia for DECADES and is studied in the west as a replacement for antibiotics which are now longer functioning well:
https://www.bacteriophage.news/antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-with-bacteriophages/
The 'no virus' team is outing themselves on this one.
I know that bacteriophages are a thing.
What people choose to call them is a different matter.
They work as you described.
We used them in industry in a technique called "phage display".
As far as anyone can tell, iirc, they're a signalling system used by certain monocellular organisms.
As regards bacteria, anyone doubting their existence is welcome to make a refreshing glass of squash using the contents of an unflushed toilet.
Let me know how you get on.
So why no one is able to prove any alleged bacteriophage by direct real time observation of all vital occurring processes with them or by experimentation on them in a form of independent variables?
Why all we have is pointing and declaring of something in micrographs which come from a method (TEM) which is not validated by comparison with reference material?
Not to mention issues with processing of bio matter before it is ready for visualization.
Pathogenic bacteria is not proven by any observation or scientific experiment. And generally study and understanding what so-called bacteria really is is abysmal due a lack of proper tools and methods.
I think Dr. Yeadon's point is concisely made by his last sentence. To paraphrase, human waste can make you sick. Whether you call it a pathogen or not, it can be passed on from one human to another. So, what is it that makes you sick?
One thing I've noticed among all of the studies that disprove contagions. None of them deal with vomit and excrement, or the fluids which can be passed from one to another when someone is sick with a stomach "bug". Can a sick person that is vomiting pass it on to someone else. For the stated reasons above, I think they can.
Not to mention your propaganda links to wikipedia and some not scientific article are pathetic.
Perhaps we can stick to science rather than personal attacks. If that's not possible, I can fix the problem. Let me know.
I can fix the problem with you by exposing your
behaviour that shows a lack of good sense or judgement on social media platforms and you can take me to the court where you will falsely accuse me for slander. Yet I will clearly prove that there was no slander committed.
Do you want to start this game with me or do you want to start interacting with people in good faith?
Blocking me is not going to help you to win the argument. It will be obvious for others that you do not have valid arguments to present.
Your beliefs are not valid evidence.
The burden of proof is still on those who claim existence of exosomes, viruses, pathogenic bacteria, phages, nucleotides and immune system.
So provide valid evidence or admit that you do not have it.
the burden of proof is on the person challenging the existing theory.
It's an hypothesis, not a theory.
No, it isn't. This theory is only believed for a long time, but has, in fact, never been proven in the first place.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim - science is about falsifiability - can we get back to our natural sensibilities..
Wrong. By logic the burden of proof is on initial claimants and their supporters, not on those who question or deny their claims. Also it is not even a scientific theory. For this a hypothesis has to be tested by conducting an experiment on a real independent variable.
"Burden of Proof
Informal
This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
It keeps coming back to naming certain particles and claiming THESE must be the "cause" of disease. The fact is, toxic assaults and malnutrition are the actual cause. Locating some maggots on road kill is NOT evidence that the maggots killed the animal.
I have been teaching people about it since the beginning of 2020 on social media platforms.
Yeah, right.
Go to Russia and find out yourself.
The burden of proof is not on me as per logic.
Steve, here ya go....oh, and I will BANKRUPT you...why not debate me....and we can put a substantial financial wager on the line....are you up for it? imagine a man with your wealth possessing the intellect of a 5th grader...that you can't understand conceptually why the sequencing process actually disproves virology...hahahahaha....hit me up, I'll give you my information and then proceed to drain your of your wealth...Kaufman is a soft and docile, me, not so much.....
https://theviraldelusion.substack.com/p/revealed-the-sars-cov-2-sequencing
Kauffman is an intellect you can't conceive.
please submit your answers to 4 or more questions in the article. You can be the first one. thanks!
I am not disputing the article, but I don't see how it addresses Steve's question about the mathematical odds of something appearing exactly the same way in over a million people. The article seems contradictory, stating that it is impossible to get a test to look the same on two different computers. So, even if a test is designed to show the same results in people with the disease's symptoms, wouldn't it be nearly impossible to have 1 million identical test results, whether caused by the virus or other environmental factors? Steve's point is that the probability of the results suggests it must be something specific, like the virus. I would like a clearer explanation of the probability aspect of the results, with less focus on the microbiology, which I humbly admit is over my head.
Hi Rob, I don't think you understood the article, so let me try to re-explain it. When 1000 labs around the world do whole genome sequencing and "find" the "virus" all they are really doing is asking the question: can you assemble a hypothetical sequence from this particular person's lung fluid dna. And the answer is: sometimes. That "sometimes" answer doesn't correlate with sickness. Sometimes these people are sick and sometimes they aren't. So there isn't even the most basic of reasons to believe that there is a connection: correlation. But beyond that, the fact that you can sometimes assemble a hypothetical sequence from a person's BALF dna doesn't prove anything. It doesn't mean the hypothetical sequence is IN the BALF, it just proves you can assemble it. I can assemble a lego sasquatch from the lego pieces in a 1000 homes around the world - it doesn't mean that everyone has a lego sasquatch in their home. Do you understand? It doesn't mean that ANY home has a lego sasquatch. In order to know if ANYONE has built a lego sasquatch we need to find at least ONE of them to start. But virology has never even done that. It's all smoke and mirrors.
Hi Michael, I want to congratulate you on your amazing article that has misled so many people. Perhaps you can explain why you are doing this?
Do you simply not understand how sequencing works?
Or do you understand how it works and deliberately mischaracterizing it for people?
How about we have a debate between you and a professor I know who teaches genomics so we can expose the truth?
Hi "Steve."
There is no reason for a video debate. I just watched one where you avoided the actual science and tried to land 4th grade level personal attacks for an hour. Your professor friend is perfectly welcome to writing his explanations right here. If he can show that whole genome sequencing is a methodologically sound process upon which to conclude decisively that an infectious replicating particle which causes a disease called covid was clearly found than more power to him. I wouldn't want to have to do that, because it's obvious that it has yet to be done, with all the king's money and all the king's horses ahem, "scientists" . But if he can... or if he would like to even try to do that, than he is welcome to go ahead and write out his proof right here. Then everyone can consider his thoughts and mine and comment for themselves.
Very well explained, Michael. Thank you. This is how I learn; without all the ego. Much appreciated. Essentially the test is the blueprint of a manufactured sequence. And, it makes sense that if you begin constructing it from a person with symptoms, you will more likely see positive tests in people with symptoms. No coincidence there. Still, there are more than enough positives in asymptomatic people and negatives in symptomatic to dismiss any notion that a virus is responsible for the results. In fact, even just one example either way should completely destroy the virus theory.
Not so sure about the "match the blueprint please" sequence. Do you really think all scientists are looking for the "original" patient strain but did not test any of the other millions of patients with symptoms to SEE IF they all match, but are not in healthy subjects? Highly unlikely, but prove me wrong.
Further, a false positive or negative do not invalidate this theory as resistance to disease runs a bell-shaped curve (ie, there will always be outliers in nature).
Ridiculously enough, that is EXACTLY what they do. There is DEF no alignment between sequencing and illness. We have seen the PCR testing fraud in plain daylight. MIllions of non-sick people tested "positive." Its the same in the more rarified world of the whole genome sequencing. there is not a single study out there that shows in any statistically significant way that sick people have "the virus" and healthy people don't. Not a single study. As I have mentioned earlier, they never even did the obscenely simple study of testing contagion by injecting a mouse with "sars cov2" and then seeing how many other mice get sick. Would have cost less than 10 grand. And yes they DO posit that mice get covid - a study they did with injecting a handful of mice with a lung fluid mixture and seeing them lose 10% of their weight was considered seminal in the field of covid studies - even though there were very good reasons beside "a virus" that the mice might have lost weight in the experiment (which were ignored of course). Its all smoke and mirrors. Cheap easy clear experiments which could show clear conclusions are not done. Expensive complex experiments which have faulty reasoning behind them are done instead.
Scientific method doesn’t allow for outliers. If I drop the same ball 100 times in the same room I am sitting in right now, the law of gravity will prove it drops to the floor 100 times. Similarly, If said virus truly exists then a valid test should yield 100% consistent results. This was addressed in Koch’s postulates from the very beginning of germ theory. When things didn’t go as proponents hoped they abandoned the postulates and made exceptions to explain the “outliers”: “asymptomatic carriers, disease resistance immune systems, viral load, etc.” they not only abandoned the postulates, but scientific method as well. Note none of the outliers have been scientifically validated either. It’s all inferred.
just read the original papers for your answers.
Just to add to the point. The other side of it is that folks like Kirsch are claiming not only that there is a lego sasquatch in every messy home, but that it is the cause of why the home is messy (sick). So even IF it could be validated that a sasquatch was found in a home (let alone every messy home), it would still have to validated that the sasquatch was the one messing up everybody's living room and leaving a pile of dishes in the sink. This is why folks like Kaufman say we have no reason to rule out that all we are looking at is cell debris. And since we know that cell debris has the same shape under a micrograph that the theoretical virus has, and since we know that cell debris is a common output from other "virus" "isolation" processes, then it seems we are consistently just looking at cell debris. And since we know that increased cell debris is a common output from sick people, our first assumption until proven wrong should obviously be that there is cell debris in the sample BALF and that is what we are "sequencing".
Very well stated. I do have a couple of unrelated questions on virus and germ theory, but I will stay on course here. Perhaps, I will catchup with you on your Substack. One big takeaway from this thread. According to Steve’s poll, 37% of his Substack followers do not believe in a Covid virus. Huge progress is being made in uncovering the truth. I imagine if he asked that question a year ago, it would be less than half of that. I fully believed in viruses when I first started following Steve 3 or 4 years ago. I’m a paid subscriber for his relentless pursuit against the vaccines, but then these no-virus people started having some not so friendly encounters first. Imán my pursuit to defend Steve, I started asking questions. Those answers to those questions led me to more questions and into reading a few books. I began with the history. The BeChamp Pasteur book put a new light on things I believed about germs and led me to read a few other books. I would say I became solidly against believing in viruses about a year ago now, so I am still a newbie.
Exactly. Thanks for the kind words. Happy to keep going if you have other questions or thoughts.
Steve, or perhaps you should discuss with Dr. Mark Bailey......I will post his comment from his paper (which still hasn't been refuted) "A Farewell to Virology" here: "no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus. Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance. The “mutations” only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination". Your turn, , sonny boy..
I explained why the mathematician from Hamburg and Wallach are wrong here: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/how-can-millions-of-people-all-exhibiting/comment/59045024.
https://wickedtruths.org/en/kary-mullis/ ... VID KARY STATES THAT PCR IS NOT A TEST NOR CAN BE AN ACCURATE ONE
Really tough guy??? you're a real tough guy....I won't read it because you're an imbecile.....and to prove this, why not walk me through how ANY sequence in ANY gene bank is proven to have come from a viral pathogen...or maybe we do it in a ZOOM call, with money on the line??
Tough guy, walk me through how YOU are demonstrating scientifically that the
sequences are viral in nature when you assemble the very first template and declare you have discovered a pathogenic virus....can you walk me through that process, tough guy?
Tough guy, walk me through how YOU demonstrate that any of those sequences belong to a disease-causing replication-competent particle that can make a person ill......how does that work, many Steve can explain that one to me.....
everyone can and do lie some wont at the price of their life... but these evil satan bought souls are threating their families with grusome death... because the majority says its the truth doesnt prove veracity,,, ie the majority of astronomers all agreed that the eatrth was flat and their instruments said the same etc etc. your adopted position was biassed to put it not obcene ly and is untenable and possibly perfidous
You say, “Everyone agrees. There is no debate.” well Kaufman doesn’t, so you “lose” before you have started, by your own hyperbole.
To put that another way: during the interview, your behaviour is likewise, inferior to Kaufman’s and this immediately puts your advocacy at a disadvantage, it’s not a good look…
No amount of <passion> beats <calm> (except by force) plus we are all on the same side (I hope) that is ultimately *against* the use of force, by the State, against the individual such as forced medical-intervention.
The regular way to sequence the whole genome of SARS-CoV-2 is to use a PCR-based protocol like ARCTIC or MIDNIGHT, which actually don't even cover the whole genome because they're missing fragments of about 30-50 bases from the very beginning and end of the genome. For example in the third version of the ARCTIC protocol, the genome is covered by 98 overlapping PCR amplicons with an average length of about 400 bases: https://github.com/artic-network/artic-ncov2019/blob/master/primer_schemes/nCoV-2019/V3/nCoV-2019.bed. But the first forward primer starts at position 30 of Wuhan-Hu-1 and the last reverse primer ends at position 29866, so the first 29 bases and last 66 bases of Wuhan-Hu-1 are not covered by any amplicon.
The protocols have to be updated every now and then because there's amplicon dropoff, because a part of the genome has mutated so it fails to be amplified by PCR. So because of that the protocols also have alternative primers for a couple of locations that have mutated too much so they have amplicon dropoff.
In the paper by Fan Wu et al., the Wuhan-Hu-1 reference genome was initially determined by doing metagenomic RNA-seq with random priming and then by doing de-novo assembly with MEGAHIT. But there's probably not too many sequences of SARS-CoV-2 submitted to GISAID that were sequenced by doing metagenomic sequencing or that were assembled with a de-novo assembler like MEGAHIT.
PCR-based sequencing is cheaper than metagenoming or total RNA sequencing, because you don't have to sequence as much genetic material to get high coverage for the viral genome.
The regular way to assemble the reads is to align the reads against a reference genome with a short read aligner like minimap2 or BWA. De-novo assemblers like MEGAHIT are slower, and they sometimes end up missing a short piece from either end of the genome, or they fail to produce a single complete contig for the entire genome. And they sometimes make an error where either extreme of the viral contig includes a short piece of host ribosomal RNA or a copy of a wrong part of the viral sequence.
And also variant calling workflows are meant to be used with a BAM/SAM file of raw reads that were aligned against a reference, so they can't be used with a FASTA file produced by MEGAHIT which contains the whole genome in a single piece but which is missing base quality scores.
However besides the metagenomic sequencing reads published by Fan Wu et al., there are also metagenomic sequencing reads of other early samples that are available from the NCBI's Sequence Read Archive (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=SRR11092064). And there are metagenomic runs of environmental samples from the Huanan Seafood Market that contain enough reads of SARS-CoV-2 that they can be used to assemble the genome (https://github.com/jbloom/Huanan_market_samples/blob/main/results/aggregated_counts/sars2_aligned_by_run.csv). And there are metagenomic sequencing runs of other SARS-like coronaviruses that didn't use targeted enrichment so they didn't specifically amplify SARS-like viruses (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=SRR11085797).
https://wickedtruths.org/en/kary-mullis/ ... VID KARY STATES THAT PCR IS NOT A TEST NOR CAN BE AN ACCURATE ONE
I wasn't talking about PCR testing but about a method used in genetic sequencing where PCR is used to amplify overlapping regions of the genome of a virus. The purpose of PCR in that case is to reduce sequencing costs by making more copies of the viral genome, so that you can get many reads which cover the genome without having to sequence gigabytes of genetic material.
Kary Mullis wrote: "I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two 'primer target sequences' comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way." (http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/McDonald-Mullis.html)
basic premis is perfidous therefore all that fol;lows are the perfidous fruits kerry mullis states that its not a test its a method of replication not identification
the creator of the pcr kerryu mullins said it cannot be used as a test ,,, pcr can only replicate ... and you choose to ignore this truth by the inventor of pcr , thats equats to tremendous dizzing specular ego mania or tremendopus perfidy
Hey Alex, you should IGNORE "henjin", but you really would be well advised to stop citing Kary Mullis! He was NOT a hero to our old "AIDS" dissident movement! This quote is NOT what it seems to be! Dr. Kary Mullis' EXACT words were: "It (PCR) doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you, or anything like that"...!! I was THERE when Mullis uttered these words back in 1997. I helped to produce the seminar where Mullis said this! Mullis BELIEVED in viruses, and he DEFINITELY believed that his PCR could INDEED detect viruses. Mullis was PART of the PROBLEM! Please see:
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc
2. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage
3. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
friend thanks for trying to put me on the right truth track,,,i read all the links 6they are all commtaries on whatkary alledgedly said and quite out of context . i think ... i learned to read from the source, in this case vid footage although fabrication ommisions abound ... i couldnt find an unedited uncensored original that i saw at the begining of thisw sad event...yes the pcr could detect viruses provided the virus has been identified isolated , which is quintessental , then the pcr can work otherwise as kary says in the vid , you dont know what genes your looking at ... finally ,,,, yandex came up w3ith the vid , thats the link i send as i remember the vid... your links are well perfidous by omission,,,please no offence intended by me ... just truth... good God bless everyone ... happy trails yippie ya yea...
Alex I'm really sorry that you continue to be confused even after I supplied links that should provide you with clarification about the "role" that Kary Mullis actually played in our dear old "AIDS" dissident movement. However, in the VERY SHORT span of time that you took to post your reply, it's not even possible for you to have truly absorbed everything at all of the links I provided . As such, I don't believe there is anything else I can do at this point to try to enlighten you any further. God bless YOU too, and happy trails to you, too friend...!
thank you for your good intent,[ i can do simple speed reading ,, as far as kary ...im not interested in personalities in this subject... just pcr facts... pcr can detect and identify any gene provided its been isolated and been proven to be causitive of illness... kovid hasnt been isolated ,,, its genetics were created on with computer etc ... i wish you all the best
In the patent for PCR that was issued in 1986 to Kary Mullis et al., they wrote that one application for PCR would be to diagnose the presence of pathogenic microorganisms including viruses. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US4683195] Mullis was also the last author of a patent from 1989 titled "Detection of viruses by amplification and hybridization", where they specifically wrote that PCR can be used to detect HIV, and they wrote that HIV has been sequenced and that there are isolates of HIV available. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US5176995A] Kary Mullis was additionally one of the authors of a paper published in 1987 titled "Identification of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Sequences by Using In Vitro Enzymatic Amplification and Oligomer Cleavage Detection". [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC254157/pdf/jvirol00096-0400.pdf]
When Kary Mullis said that "quantitative PCR is an oxymoron", I believe he meant that PCR was not an accurate way to quantify viral load, and not that PCR was not an accurate way to determine whether a sample contains a virus or not. John Lauritsen wrote: "With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: 'Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.' PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers." [https://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jlprotease.htm]
In an interview with Gary Null, Mullis also said: "PCR came along right about the same time that HIV did. And it was in that [unintelligible word] that people started looking with PCR for HIV. That was the only way to see it, except for culture. Which was a long protracted procedure, which a lot of times didn't turn right. [...] The culture - the whole method - cell biology is a bunch of magic half of the time. And people who say that they can do quantitative estimations of HIV from culture, they're just - they're fooling themselves." [https://www.bitchute.com/video/8SjzUDxBZL9t/, time 9:05] But by "quantitative estimations", I think Mullis was again talking about estimating viral load.
HIV is typically detected using antigen or antibody tests and not PCR, but the main use of PCR tests in the case of HIV was traditionally to measure viral load. PCR tests for HIV are commonly called "NAT tests" or nucleic acid tests, and they are further divided into quantitative and non-quantitative NAT tests depending on whether their aim is to measure viral load, even though some NAT tests for HIV also use transcription-mediated amplification instead of PCR. So the typical use of PCR tests for HIV is different from the typical use of PCR tests for COVID.
The CDC's website says that "Most rapid tests and the only HIV self-test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are antibody tests." [https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/hiv-testing/test-types.html] And the CDC's website also says that a NAT test "can tell if a person has HIV or how much virus is present in the blood (HIV viral load test)" and that a NAT test "should be considered for people who have had a recent exposure or a possible exposure and have early symptoms of HIV and who have tested negative with an antibody or antigen/antibody test" (so basically a NAT test is used as a fallback for antibody and antigen tests).
In the year 2006 in Australia, there was a court case where someone was convicted of three counts of endangering life after he had unprotected sex with three women without telling them that he was HIV positive. [https://web.archive.org/web/20070709210442/http://garlan.org/Cases/Parenzee/2007-SASC-143-Parenzee.pdf] He appealed by stating that HIV has not been proven to exist, and testimony in his favor was provided by Eleni Papadopolous-Eleopulos and Valendar Turner from the Perth Group. After Mullis's comments about PCR were brought up the Perth Group, Mullis was sent an e-mail which said: "I am assisting the prosecution in an Appeal to the Supreme court in South Australia about a conviction for criminal transmission of HIV. The basis for that Appeal is that HIV does not exist and that the PCR technology is flawed. So in effect the technical basis for identification of virus is on trial. The group of denialists giving evidence are people from Perth who quote you as indicating that PCR technology is erroneous and misleading. Can I ask you to comment on this statement." [http://aras.ab.ca/articles/legal/McDonald-Mullis.html] But Mullis responded by writing: "I will not try to convince anyone that PCR can be used successfully to specifically make multiple copies of any nucleic acid sequence that can be uniquely defined by two 'primer target sequences' comprising the termini of the sequence of interest. The veracity of this no longer has anything to do with me. I think this has been confirmed by a huge number of laboratories around the world. The rapid spread of this simple technology would not have occurred had it been ineffectual or flawed in any persistent way." And Mullis also wrote that "the AIDS/HIV issue is what is not settled scientifically, not the effectiveness of PCR".
I just want to applaud you. Even though we seem to disagree on the conclusions one can draw from these studies, you are one of the only people I have ever met who has actually read and familarized yourself with the historical criticism of virus theory and then discussed it. So, even though we seem to disagree on whether the theory is valid or not, I do thank you for joining the discussion and doing so in a contemplative way!
Whats written in a patent is a claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be capable of being "reduced to practise".
I suspect, because I've done it myself, is to disclose a use OTHERS might want to patent. You do this because then you've "prior arted them".
They cannot secure a patent unless something is NEW, INVENTIVE and USEFUL.
If its disclosed already, you cannot get a strong patent on anything using that which is in the public domain already, because your invention lacks novelty.
Good points.
(sorry but my "like" function is somehow disabled)
Perhaps truth lies in the middle ground between no virus and contagious virus. Viruses are exosomes manufactured by the body to remove toxins, they are clean-up crew and are never contagious to others. All the people with matching genetic sequences have been poisoned with an identical synthetic toxin.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
perhaps, but how do you explain qPCR results over time in an infected patient? Can you supply answers to all the questions I posed in the article?
If you test positive, you are by definition "infected" regardless of how healthy you are. When you test again the next day you are going to be a little more or a little less infected due test variation and variation in the concentration of genetic material in the sample.
The test have been proven to be fraudulent and the entire pandemic was based on these tests results. #Fraud
Unfortunately I can't answer those questions.
Terrain theory is not saying that viruses don't exist. It's simply
saying that the development of a disease depends on the terrain.
If you are a gardener then you understand this:
Planting a seed does not mean something will grow. The seed might even sprout but under the wrong conditions nothing
will grow. In this analogy the seed is the virus. The soil, the sun, other plants, the
air and water that's the terrian. Some seeds are omni present because
they are small and fly around. They are basically everywhere. For
those omni present seeds the development of a pant depends exclusively
on the terrain.
There is plenty of evidence that terrain theory is correct:
Yusuf JP Saleeby MD: Why don't some people get COVID?
https://jpsaleebymd.substack.com/p/why-dont-some-people-get-covid
Dr. Sabine Hazan: If you have a lot of bifidobacteria then you will not get covid
https://rumble.com/v4zuntr-dr.-sabine-hazan-may-31-2024-regina-saskatchewan.html
If the NYT and accredited (indoctrinated) 'virologists' say the covid virus exists, then it must be true. It's an open and shut case according to Steve, who btw is a terrible debater.
So the NYT and accredited 'virologists' are now the arbiters of truth? Lol, good one Steve.
Hi Steve. I remember this topic coming up a couple of years ago on your forum. It was my opinion then and now that the "Viruses Don't Exist" crowd are actually psyops operatives working in conjunction with the Vaccine companies/lobbies/government to distract attention away from the staggering deaths and injuries the covid vaccines have wrought on humanity.
While your guest appears to be a MD most of those in this cult are not, but they excel in talking in circles, making assertions with virtually no evidence, and reject proof no matter how well documented it is.
Best to ignore these folks. In my opinion they have some kind of nefarious agenda and are only interested in disrupting the flow of information.
I was somewhere around 90% persuaded in the virus no virus argument until I watched this debate but I'm now fully convinced. Dr. Kaufman has nailed it to the extent it can be at this stage. Thanks to all for airng this.
I would really love to get to the bottom of this and have a completely open mind to there being no viruses, some illnesses being cause by a virus and others (that we think are) not, or all of them (that we are told are) being caused by a virus. Answering the fundamental question of whether viruses exist, and if they cause (rather than being the result of) disease is so important to our future health and healthcare. Please do everything you can to curiously and honestly get to the truth.
I just want to applaud your allegiance, Steve, to good-faith vigorous debate and dialogue. "It doesn't matter who wins the debate." Real scientists readily trash each other's theories in a joint quest for Truth, without resentment. Thank you. 👍😎
Thank you to both Dr. Kauffman and Steve for the discussion. Before 2020 I had never heard anyone question the virus existence.
With due respects to both sides for seeking truth, it is clear that the debate arises because of visual limitations even with the best optical microscopes. Observation by electron microscopes on the other hand likely involves multiple steps that are in question by "no virus" side.
The genetic sequencing likewise involves multiple steps removing the final results a few steps removed from the original specimen.
The argument by Steve and the "virus exist" side is in the consistency of genetic sequencing results and apparent contagious nature.
Niether side can reject that objects do exist that are smaller than biological cells.
The difference between the two sides is whether there exist objects called "virus" that get replicated. For the "virus exist" side, there has to be genetic information for the replication. For the "no virus" side, the genetic information is simply a byproduct from the multiple steps involved and is generated by computer construction minus any known genetic sequences that could be in the specimen. I am not familiar with even the most basics in genetic sequencing but understand that's how the computer reconstruction might be done.
If the basics involved in sample preparation to obtaining final results can be explained to the public or told where to look, we might begin to see the strengths and weaknesses on each side of the argument. Physical limitations on observations are real that we have to rely on observations far removed from the original specimen. And, knowing the certainty on each step most crucial.
In my mind the existence of viruses is far better substantiated than sequencing one via current methods. Most important I remember FIRST HAND chickenpox and measles sweeping through my classrooms back in the 1950s. Never got it again either!
Further, fake vaccines depend on CLAIMING they know how to sequence viruses. The existence of viruses is a separate issue from how to deal with them.
My third daughter had ChickenPox when she was a toddler and a friend of mine brought her three children over so they could get ChickenPox by sharing lollipops with my daughter. My friend’s children never got Chickenpox.
Explain that please.
I have dozens of situations like this that I have witnessed throughout my life.
Contagion is a myth!!
This article is a lot better than Steve's debate with Dr. Kaufman!
What's the story about the PCR tests being useless for detecting the virus? They over-amplified the samples to produce useless readings... my dog's doo doo tested positive! Then not positive the next day...off and on results... Kerry Mullis, now dead, inventor of the PCR said it should not be used the way they used it.
The title of this article itself is circular reasoning. You can’t say that millions of people are showing signs of COVID until you first prove viruses exist. Millions of people may be ill, but saying they all have an illness caused by a virus as a means of proving viruses exist is just bad logic.
I think we can agree with Dr Kaufman that the sequence does not come from an isolated virus. It does indeed come from a mix of genetic material of unknown origin which I believe does appear to be somewhat prevalent in people exhibiting flu like symptoms. Therefore the PCR test will likely test positive during infection and tail off after infection but cannot distinguish between flu and c19.
Has anyone considered the "electron" bombardment of your observations....
Like a CRT TV illuminating pigments and causing optical distortions and cellular mutations.....
Do they appear the same with different microscopy techniques?
Probably a silly question though, how's it going Andrew?
Good to see the debate on all sides being presented.
Right or wrong it's imperative we get to the truth, our lives might depend on it!
Cheers