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!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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]"
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
Military aerosolization of sticky LNP/mRNA nanoparticles, taken into the lungs and surface of the skin, does not require a virus. It only requires squirting the bioweapon out of a plane.
Steve, if PCR were detecting genetic material that's an effect of disease rather than a cause, wouldn't that explain it? And, from what I hear, that is one of the theories offered by the virus deniers.
I wonder if the excess death patterns noted by Rancourt, which led him to conclude there was no evidence of a new, respiratory pathogen, could have been caused by a deliberate poisoning. If I remember correctly, the patterns were mostly geographical, and he explained them as the result of nonuniform application of administrative measures on unhealthy populations, but they might also be consistent with poisoning by air for example. On the other hand, I definitely remember him saying the age distribution of death was not as skewed towards the elderly as one would expect based on clinical experience or the Diamond Princess outbreak.
Hello Steve; I think you would agree there may be several methods of distribution. Injection is but one method. Permit me to conjecture that delivery via aerosolization is likely another method. If so, there 'may' be evidence for this aerosolization. There seems much interest, over several years, regarding the formation of odd cloud distributions, chemtrails. I believe the collection and analysis of such odd (manmade?) cloud structures is beyond necessary. One would need a scanning electron microscope due to the very small size of the sticky LNP/mRNA nanoparticles.
On rumble I would guess 99% disagreed Steve. The problem is Steve has no depth in the real issues and does not want to know. This makes people think he is part of the problem. Kaufman would make anyone look bad - he is just so across the material.
I am not happy about this because we all need to work together.
Steve you need to set aside your dogma - have a quiet meeting with Andrew and Tom - you will see they are intelligent - knowledgeable and committed people. If you don't do this - you are lost. The evil ones are going to use this virus fraud to kill us - it is that serious - they decided some time ago - they don't need us any more - technology etc. And please - the tests have never been validated and are MEANINGLESS!
Then you should be able to show the sequence of the particle that causes womens periods to synch up when clustered and then find a different sequence for different control clusters, and match up those clusters, since the synchronisations observed follow viral spread.
However if its not particles from say pheremones that cause this then something else is going on - the effect of the spread happens within females congrugated living together over a period of time if particles aren't doing this then what other type of coding is going on that is modifying the biology.
Humans do have emf fields and the movement of ions can be measured and perhaps this type of signalling has different impacts that is yet to be found, perhaps such fields trigger biological responses that have genomic impacts and an associated particle will not be found within the environment, but a coding modification via ions and emf could.
Is science good enough to show that synchronisation of menstrual cycles is caused by viral particles? Even if the impact is not a disease it is still the modification of biology but have we eliminated other possibilites such as field effects of the movements of ions that have been measured within humans without which we would not exist?
June 24th 2024 They're going to vaccinate all animals on Earth and poison them as protection against non-existent and non-transmissable "diseases". That have not proven causation, nor transmission nor contagion of “Foot And Mouth” Disease. Over 90% animals vaccinated for Foot And Mouth. Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/111215355.cms
NIH: No Proof Of Transmission of "Foot and Mouth Disease". A fundamental conundrum remains in the discordance between the detection of infectious FMDV in carriers and the apparent lack of contagiousness to in-contact animals. Although substantial progress has been made in elucidating the causal mechanisms of persistent FMDV infection, there are still critical knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in order to elucidate, predict, prevent, and model the risks associated with the carrier state. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7157498/
NIH: No Proof Of Contagion of "Foot and Mouth Disease". They had to inject animals with some unknown poison to claim they were "infected"; not "contagion" nor "transmisson" by being nearby, fluids or aerisols. Naive cattle were inoculated through intranasopharyngeal deposition of unprocessed OPF samples that had been collected from FMDV carriers at 30 days postinfection. These inoculated cattle developed clinical FMD, and the severity of disease they developed was similar to that of animals that had been infected with a high-titer inoculum. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135961/
I'm a PhD materials scientist who is familiar with the work of the late Royal Raymond Rife who developed a microscope (now in the Smithsonian, allegedly) which could "see" down to the level of viruses. He determined through hundreds of replications that there was a virus underlying sarcomas and carcinomas (this was back in the early 1930's). He then used a tuned radio frequency signal to penetrate the body and deliver a frequency that he found specifically hit the resonance frequency of the cell membrane of the virus, thereby bursting it and causing the virus - or, technically "viron" - to die. Doing so, in short treatments (on the order of seconds) daily, he was successful at curing otherwise terminal cancer cases. The reason for the short treatments was to allow the body to remove the dead viral debris in between treatments. His "Rife Machine" was launched into the medical world where a number of physicians began to use it successfully. However, the head of the AMA at the time, Dr. Morris Fishbein, who had never practiced medicine a day in his life, wanted 50% ownership of Rife's company. When Rife refused, Fishbein set out to destroy him -- and he did. Nevertheless. the discoveries of Rife have significant bearing on the present discussion regarding the existence of viruses. His historically documented findings appear to validate the existence of viruses and his sophisticated optical microscope did not destroy the viruses the way a modern day electron microscope would. Hope this is helpful information - if nothing else, provides broader perspective on the matter.
How to Create a False Pandemic without a Single Infection
Imagine a test for an infection that was 97% accurate. This means it generates a false positive only 3% of the time. 97% of the time it is bang on. That is pretty good for a test. So suppose we use this test on a population of 10 million. How many false positives will we get? Well, 3% of 10 million is 300,000 false positives. So there you have it. We have reached pandemic level without a single infection.
I am not saying that PCR does not detect infections, it does indeed. However I suspect that the infections being detected were really rebranded flu. Yes the PCR test will detect the presence of an infection and tail off when recovered. What I am saying is that even a tiny percentage of false positives when applied to a large population will generate a convincing appearance of a pandemic.
The epidemic was definitely test driven. They simply doubled the testing to report twice as many cases. It was basically a new version of The Emperor's New Cloths.
Yes and a simple way to prevent fake pandemics from ever happening would be to ban the mass testing of healthy people that show no symptoms of disease.
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.
You are in love with your own farts. Explain why no viruses have been found in any host? They always have to mix the sample in a bucket with some brew and let it yeast for weeks before they are able to find anything. Sounds more like what witches used to play with. And this you are able to make yourself believe in?
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.
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
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
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!
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?
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?
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.
Finding a sequence is not evidence that it is the cause of disease.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]"
Bacteriophages (phages) have been extensively isolated from various environments for over a century. This is well known.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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...
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.
Unfortunately I can't answer those questions.
Military aerosolization of sticky LNP/mRNA nanoparticles, taken into the lungs and surface of the skin, does not require a virus. It only requires squirting the bioweapon out of a plane.
please provide the evidence of these planes and explain how the qPCR goes up by 3 orders of magnitude after infection. Thanks!
Steve, if PCR were detecting genetic material that's an effect of disease rather than a cause, wouldn't that explain it? And, from what I hear, that is one of the theories offered by the virus deniers.
Steve,
I am asking why you're STILL talking of infection.
Unless you believe Rancourt is mistaken, or is a bad actor, his epidemiological analyses show there was no pandemic.
Thus, the question of "infection" doesn't arise. Its a lie.
I wonder if the excess death patterns noted by Rancourt, which led him to conclude there was no evidence of a new, respiratory pathogen, could have been caused by a deliberate poisoning. If I remember correctly, the patterns were mostly geographical, and he explained them as the result of nonuniform application of administrative measures on unhealthy populations, but they might also be consistent with poisoning by air for example. On the other hand, I definitely remember him saying the age distribution of death was not as skewed towards the elderly as one would expect based on clinical experience or the Diamond Princess outbreak.
Hello Steve; I think you would agree there may be several methods of distribution. Injection is but one method. Permit me to conjecture that delivery via aerosolization is likely another method. If so, there 'may' be evidence for this aerosolization. There seems much interest, over several years, regarding the formation of odd cloud distributions, chemtrails. I believe the collection and analysis of such odd (manmade?) cloud structures is beyond necessary. One would need a scanning electron microscope due to the very small size of the sticky LNP/mRNA nanoparticles.
Pure 100% genocide ... And we seem to be stuck in "the details" ...
1-2 billion will meet their demise, and theirs nothing they can do about it ...
Another 1-2 billion will be scarred for life, and rendered unable to do anything physically
or even mentally, from the damage they will grow into and endure ...
Unless these vaccines are stopped THIS YEAR, it will become an extinction level event ...
It is believed that people ARE STILL jabbing themselves at an alarming rate ...
We are literally, the dumbest people who ever lived ...
How do you go by electron microscopy as if you don't understand that the preparation for such imaging destroys cells?
I thought you were a tech guy. I guess inventing the mouse or whatever you did paid for you to not learn anything else.
On rumble I would guess 99% disagreed Steve. The problem is Steve has no depth in the real issues and does not want to know. This makes people think he is part of the problem. Kaufman would make anyone look bad - he is just so across the material.
I am not happy about this because we all need to work together.
Steve you need to set aside your dogma - have a quiet meeting with Andrew and Tom - you will see they are intelligent - knowledgeable and committed people. If you don't do this - you are lost. The evil ones are going to use this virus fraud to kill us - it is that serious - they decided some time ago - they don't need us any more - technology etc. And please - the tests have never been validated and are MEANINGLESS!
Then you should be able to show the sequence of the particle that causes womens periods to synch up when clustered and then find a different sequence for different control clusters, and match up those clusters, since the synchronisations observed follow viral spread.
However if its not particles from say pheremones that cause this then something else is going on - the effect of the spread happens within females congrugated living together over a period of time if particles aren't doing this then what other type of coding is going on that is modifying the biology.
Humans do have emf fields and the movement of ions can be measured and perhaps this type of signalling has different impacts that is yet to be found, perhaps such fields trigger biological responses that have genomic impacts and an associated particle will not be found within the environment, but a coding modification via ions and emf could.
Is science good enough to show that synchronisation of menstrual cycles is caused by viral particles? Even if the impact is not a disease it is still the modification of biology but have we eliminated other possibilites such as field effects of the movements of ions that have been measured within humans without which we would not exist?
June 24th 2024 They're going to vaccinate all animals on Earth and poison them as protection against non-existent and non-transmissable "diseases". That have not proven causation, nor transmission nor contagion of “Foot And Mouth” Disease. Over 90% animals vaccinated for Foot And Mouth. Read more at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/111215355.cms
NIH: No Proof Of Transmission of "Foot and Mouth Disease". A fundamental conundrum remains in the discordance between the detection of infectious FMDV in carriers and the apparent lack of contagiousness to in-contact animals. Although substantial progress has been made in elucidating the causal mechanisms of persistent FMDV infection, there are still critical knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in order to elucidate, predict, prevent, and model the risks associated with the carrier state. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7157498/
NIH: No Proof Of Contagion of "Foot and Mouth Disease". They had to inject animals with some unknown poison to claim they were "infected"; not "contagion" nor "transmisson" by being nearby, fluids or aerisols. Naive cattle were inoculated through intranasopharyngeal deposition of unprocessed OPF samples that had been collected from FMDV carriers at 30 days postinfection. These inoculated cattle developed clinical FMD, and the severity of disease they developed was similar to that of animals that had been infected with a high-titer inoculum. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6135961/
I'm a PhD materials scientist who is familiar with the work of the late Royal Raymond Rife who developed a microscope (now in the Smithsonian, allegedly) which could "see" down to the level of viruses. He determined through hundreds of replications that there was a virus underlying sarcomas and carcinomas (this was back in the early 1930's). He then used a tuned radio frequency signal to penetrate the body and deliver a frequency that he found specifically hit the resonance frequency of the cell membrane of the virus, thereby bursting it and causing the virus - or, technically "viron" - to die. Doing so, in short treatments (on the order of seconds) daily, he was successful at curing otherwise terminal cancer cases. The reason for the short treatments was to allow the body to remove the dead viral debris in between treatments. His "Rife Machine" was launched into the medical world where a number of physicians began to use it successfully. However, the head of the AMA at the time, Dr. Morris Fishbein, who had never practiced medicine a day in his life, wanted 50% ownership of Rife's company. When Rife refused, Fishbein set out to destroy him -- and he did. Nevertheless. the discoveries of Rife have significant bearing on the present discussion regarding the existence of viruses. His historically documented findings appear to validate the existence of viruses and his sophisticated optical microscope did not destroy the viruses the way a modern day electron microscope would. Hope this is helpful information - if nothing else, provides broader perspective on the matter.
Sorry bad grammar, the machine (PCR) used to make us all believe de are infefted and a damgerous threat to anyone around us.
How to Create a False Pandemic without a Single Infection
Imagine a test for an infection that was 97% accurate. This means it generates a false positive only 3% of the time. 97% of the time it is bang on. That is pretty good for a test. So suppose we use this test on a population of 10 million. How many false positives will we get? Well, 3% of 10 million is 300,000 false positives. So there you have it. We have reached pandemic level without a single infection.
I am not saying that PCR does not detect infections, it does indeed. However I suspect that the infections being detected were really rebranded flu. Yes the PCR test will detect the presence of an infection and tail off when recovered. What I am saying is that even a tiny percentage of false positives when applied to a large population will generate a convincing appearance of a pandemic.
The epidemic was definitely test driven. They simply doubled the testing to report twice as many cases. It was basically a new version of The Emperor's New Cloths.
Yes and a simple way to prevent fake pandemics from ever happening would be to ban the mass testing of healthy people that show no symptoms of disease.
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.
You are in love with your own farts. Explain why no viruses have been found in any host? They always have to mix the sample in a bucket with some brew and let it yeast for weeks before they are able to find anything. Sounds more like what witches used to play with. And this you are able to make yourself believe in?
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.