And I agree w/his analysis. There are more details that could be added to some of his answers, but they would be extensions, not exceptions or justifications.
Fascinating read. I remain unconvinced. Even if viruses in fact do exist, it would appear that they are not always and maybe never the sole cause of the illness, as is suggested by two other data points during Covid, i.e. the nutritional aspect and the bearing it has on the immune system, including the research published in BMJ during the period which concluded that low inflammatory diets like plant-based (-73%) and even pescatarian (-59%), reduced the risk of "moderate to severe" covid, and high inflammatory diets more likely increase the risk (low carb diets: +20%).
The other issue is the question of why viruses obey stop signs, and political boundaries, as has been documented by several researchers both in Italy during the aerly part of the outbreak and in terms of the distribution of mortality in the US (Rancourt).
Also unconvinced......when I look up the defn of virus it states non-living. So we always say viruses can only live by taking over a living host. I cannot be a car jacker without a car. So am I a car jacker before I get into the car? Would it be misinformation to call me a car jacker just because idk you presume I will hijack a car?
If a virus is non-living when it gets isolated and centrifuged then is it a virus? It is not in a living cell once removed from the patient.
My understanding of what Cowan states is that due to that inconvenient truth, scientists add fetal calf cell (to provide a living host for the non-living virus to invade and come back to life.)(Feel like a am story telling to a 7 yr old boy because that sounds like a comic book not science). Next for the living fetal calf cells to survive we need to provide them nutrition so now we have added a second variable to the Petri dish. Then, I have read antibiotics get added providing a third substance.
When I looked at a picture of Petri dishes one done as stated above one done as stated above minus the patient centrifuged specimen, they both looked like the so called “spike” protein after about 5 days.
Another way Cowen explained it was if I want to see if a wine cork can break a window then I remove it from my kitchen drawer and throw it at the window. If I melt down the silverware in the drawer with the cork mixed into it and then throw it at the window and it breaks, would it be accurate to say a cork can break a window?
I am not sure if it is Hammond's ignorance of the other side’s arguments or if I sense some gaslighting in his article.
Cowan and Kaufman very often – maybe every time I have seen them discuss this point – claim that the most important part of this isolation process would be the isolation done DIRECTLY from the human sample, so as to verify the subsequently cultured product.
This direct human (or animal) sample we could (sort of) call an “uncultured” sample of the viral particles. I say sort of because according to the virus theory, our lungs, blood, and other cells are “cell cultures” and, when infected, are overflowing with virions. Thus it shouldn’t be too hard to find the actual “wild” virions to compare them.
But since NO ONE does that (please show me a paper, I’ve been dying to see one for a couple years now), and apparently some claim its impossible to do… then there is NO WAY to verify that the immortal-diseased-cell-culture-manufactured particles that you and the virologists say are “isolated” are indeed the *same particles* found in sick patients and so thus could be established to have a *CORRELATIVE RELATIONSHIP* WITH THE DISEASE (as causation would require many additional steps)
That is the first question one needs to answer to satisfy the audience that cares about this question. Not a made-up version of it where we are “isolating” a psuedo-man-made particle that may or may not be found in a human host.
And that's without mentioning that for those particles to be considered "viral" then they have to be able to cause disease. And simply isolating anything, without being able to observe its behavior directly, is NEVER going to be able to prove it causes a disease. Therefore, it is impossible through these means - or any means available to man (my claim - welcome to prove me wrong) - to prove this beyond even a reasonable doubt.
So no, they did not idolate a virus (now called SARS-CoV-2) or at least shouldn't claim they did. Because they can't prove it. Again, the evidence provided, at best, may indicate a *correlative relationship* with an image under the microscope and a certain disease. Suggesting anything else without that disclaimer is dishonest.
This is basic, middle school level science.
In order to support the popular "virus" story, the extrapolations one has to make to get from observations to conclusion are mind-boggling. So you suspect a thing is in a sample of some snot, blood, or tissue, put it all in a centrifuge, took out the least dense part, put it on some sick, immortalized cells devoid of animal host system to support the cells, watched it break down, centrifuged it agian, took a peep under high powered microscope, found some circle thingies (that look a lot like known cellular breakdown material) that are drastically different sizes from each other (awful strange for such a simple genome), AND THEN EXPRAPOLATE that that must be the cause of a non-specific disease that shares symptomatology with many other known diseases, while theorizing that these particles that lack a metabolism and therefore have no means to energetically perform the amazing feats that you ascribe to them, DO SO... in a way that could "infect" 85% of the US population (per 2021 US blood banks seroprevalence study) in a little more than a years time.
Woah-OH!
Yeah, that's a far cry from the rigorous scientific method I was taught. It also defies most people's sense of logic when they actually scrutinize the methodolgy.
As I do with many “pro-virus” (for lack of a better term) docs or scientists, I will now offer you and Jeremy Hammon (I left this comment on his blog too, see if it gets through moderation) the opportunity to hold a live and/or recorded interview with myself, where we prepare and then engage in a collaborative interview or fact-finding setting to honestly and thoroughly address the REAL questions the virus-deniers have (that your article and everyone else who has thus tried, cannot seem to answer in a satisfactory manner) and then discuss, maybe debate, what can truly be concluded by the science, or lack thereof, that touches upon those questions. We discuss the studies, their limitations, logic and maybe even the potential utility (or lack thereof) of the learnings in an open and non-combative manner. We remain friends at the end. The audience understands the science behind certain claims and how sound it is or isn’t. Post-interview, you can use segments of the video to answer question people have on the topic or "debunk" stuff. Win-Win.
It always seems to me that pro-virus folks never quite get a good handle on the way that those have doubts about them think. I don’t know why it is. That’s why I think a live forum of this type would be most helpful.
Recently, I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Cowan about this.
The issue begins with isolation. Can we get one paper explaining how isolation process is done from A to Z.
I don’t want to hear it has been done and the science is settled, I want to know how it is done step by step.
I think that is a small request to ask of the scientists that tell me they exist. In addition, it is a minimum that all of us healthcare providers should know if we are going to be throwing around pills and injections to treat so called viruses.
"Yes, we can point to studies in which scientists isolated viruses in cell culture using uninfected controls. I have already provided two references showing how an uninoculated control was used during the process of culturing SARS-CoV‑2 and a SARS-like coronavirus, respectively.
And that’s that. Scientists have isolated SARS‑CoV‑2 by taking samples from sick patients, purifying the sample, and then using the resulting virus-containing supernatant for inoculation in cell culture alongside uninfected controls otherwise provided the same treatment. Thus, according to his own stated criteria, SARS‑CoV‑2 has been isolated."
"We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.com)."
Therefore, whatever the researchers think was isolated could have come from 1) fetal bovine serum or 2) antibiotics/antimycotics and NOT FROM THE SAMPLE.
There is nothing in the article confirming the "additives" were free of what was finally isolated prior to isolation?
Positive control is mentioned at bottom of p.5 in pdf. What about negative control for a proper control experiment?
The second linked article (Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor) employs both positive and negative controls (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711) described under section titled "Virus infectivity detected by immunofluorescence assay". This paper is from 2013, and is not about sars-cov-2 but bat SL-CoV-WIV1 isolated from bat faecal samples in Vero E6 cells.
So the first paper has no positive and negative controls and was polluted with "additives" prior to isolation.
The second paper does not show Sars-Cov-2 isolation.
If I was doing such tests I would check to make sure any additives were free of what was finally isolated. I don't see any statement stating this was done prior to isolation.
Fascinating read. I remain unconvinced. Even if viruses in fact do exist, it would appear that they are not always and maybe never the sole cause of the illness, as is suggested by two other data points during Covid, i.e. the nutritional aspect and the bearing it has on the immune system, including the research published in BMJ during the period which concluded that low inflammatory diets like plant-based (-73%) and even pescatarian (-59%), reduced the risk of "moderate to severe" covid, and high inflammatory diets more likely increase the risk (low carb diets: +20%).
The other issue is the question of why viruses obey stop signs, and political boundaries, as has been documented by several researchers both in Italy during the aerly part of the outbreak and in terms of the distribution of mortality in the US (Rancourt).
I wrote an article on the whole thing here:
https://www.americaoutloud.com/covid-19-the-chickens-are-now-coming-home-to-roost/
“They Pray You Never Watch This”
The Real Anthony Fauci MOVIE — based on the best-selling book by RFK Jr.
Watch it FREE for 10 DAYS starting today!
Share, share and then share again!
https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com
I’ve been led to believe that computer sequencing was in China to complete the viral genome? How is that a “real virus”?
Has anyone tried string theory to find a reason to believe in the phantom virus ?
Also unconvinced......when I look up the defn of virus it states non-living. So we always say viruses can only live by taking over a living host. I cannot be a car jacker without a car. So am I a car jacker before I get into the car? Would it be misinformation to call me a car jacker just because idk you presume I will hijack a car?
If a virus is non-living when it gets isolated and centrifuged then is it a virus? It is not in a living cell once removed from the patient.
My understanding of what Cowan states is that due to that inconvenient truth, scientists add fetal calf cell (to provide a living host for the non-living virus to invade and come back to life.)(Feel like a am story telling to a 7 yr old boy because that sounds like a comic book not science). Next for the living fetal calf cells to survive we need to provide them nutrition so now we have added a second variable to the Petri dish. Then, I have read antibiotics get added providing a third substance.
When I looked at a picture of Petri dishes one done as stated above one done as stated above minus the patient centrifuged specimen, they both looked like the so called “spike” protein after about 5 days.
Another way Cowen explained it was if I want to see if a wine cork can break a window then I remove it from my kitchen drawer and throw it at the window. If I melt down the silverware in the drawer with the cork mixed into it and then throw it at the window and it breaks, would it be accurate to say a cork can break a window?
Also if viruses could be aerosolized and blown through the air, we would not be having this conversation because they would have killed us already
little pagan says why not both? big man kill us all ways!!
I am not sure if it is Hammond's ignorance of the other side’s arguments or if I sense some gaslighting in his article.
Cowan and Kaufman very often – maybe every time I have seen them discuss this point – claim that the most important part of this isolation process would be the isolation done DIRECTLY from the human sample, so as to verify the subsequently cultured product.
This direct human (or animal) sample we could (sort of) call an “uncultured” sample of the viral particles. I say sort of because according to the virus theory, our lungs, blood, and other cells are “cell cultures” and, when infected, are overflowing with virions. Thus it shouldn’t be too hard to find the actual “wild” virions to compare them.
But since NO ONE does that (please show me a paper, I’ve been dying to see one for a couple years now), and apparently some claim its impossible to do… then there is NO WAY to verify that the immortal-diseased-cell-culture-manufactured particles that you and the virologists say are “isolated” are indeed the *same particles* found in sick patients and so thus could be established to have a *CORRELATIVE RELATIONSHIP* WITH THE DISEASE (as causation would require many additional steps)
That is the first question one needs to answer to satisfy the audience that cares about this question. Not a made-up version of it where we are “isolating” a psuedo-man-made particle that may or may not be found in a human host.
And that's without mentioning that for those particles to be considered "viral" then they have to be able to cause disease. And simply isolating anything, without being able to observe its behavior directly, is NEVER going to be able to prove it causes a disease. Therefore, it is impossible through these means - or any means available to man (my claim - welcome to prove me wrong) - to prove this beyond even a reasonable doubt.
So no, they did not idolate a virus (now called SARS-CoV-2) or at least shouldn't claim they did. Because they can't prove it. Again, the evidence provided, at best, may indicate a *correlative relationship* with an image under the microscope and a certain disease. Suggesting anything else without that disclaimer is dishonest.
This is basic, middle school level science.
In order to support the popular "virus" story, the extrapolations one has to make to get from observations to conclusion are mind-boggling. So you suspect a thing is in a sample of some snot, blood, or tissue, put it all in a centrifuge, took out the least dense part, put it on some sick, immortalized cells devoid of animal host system to support the cells, watched it break down, centrifuged it agian, took a peep under high powered microscope, found some circle thingies (that look a lot like known cellular breakdown material) that are drastically different sizes from each other (awful strange for such a simple genome), AND THEN EXPRAPOLATE that that must be the cause of a non-specific disease that shares symptomatology with many other known diseases, while theorizing that these particles that lack a metabolism and therefore have no means to energetically perform the amazing feats that you ascribe to them, DO SO... in a way that could "infect" 85% of the US population (per 2021 US blood banks seroprevalence study) in a little more than a years time.
Woah-OH!
Yeah, that's a far cry from the rigorous scientific method I was taught. It also defies most people's sense of logic when they actually scrutinize the methodolgy.
As I do with many “pro-virus” (for lack of a better term) docs or scientists, I will now offer you and Jeremy Hammon (I left this comment on his blog too, see if it gets through moderation) the opportunity to hold a live and/or recorded interview with myself, where we prepare and then engage in a collaborative interview or fact-finding setting to honestly and thoroughly address the REAL questions the virus-deniers have (that your article and everyone else who has thus tried, cannot seem to answer in a satisfactory manner) and then discuss, maybe debate, what can truly be concluded by the science, or lack thereof, that touches upon those questions. We discuss the studies, their limitations, logic and maybe even the potential utility (or lack thereof) of the learnings in an open and non-combative manner. We remain friends at the end. The audience understands the science behind certain claims and how sound it is or isn’t. Post-interview, you can use segments of the video to answer question people have on the topic or "debunk" stuff. Win-Win.
It always seems to me that pro-virus folks never quite get a good handle on the way that those have doubts about them think. I don’t know why it is. That’s why I think a live forum of this type would be most helpful.
Recently, I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Cowan about this.
The issue begins with isolation. Can we get one paper explaining how isolation process is done from A to Z.
I don’t want to hear it has been done and the science is settled, I want to know how it is done step by step.
I think that is a small request to ask of the scientists that tell me they exist. In addition, it is a minimum that all of us healthcare providers should know if we are going to be throwing around pills and injections to treat so called viruses.
Dr. Kaufman said that the major fallacy of the virus debate is circular reasoning the conclusion is found in the premise.
Question for Jeremy Hammond's Answer 3:
"Yes, we can point to studies in which scientists isolated viruses in cell culture using uninfected controls. I have already provided two references showing how an uninoculated control was used during the process of culturing SARS-CoV‑2 and a SARS-like coronavirus, respectively.
And that’s that. Scientists have isolated SARS‑CoV‑2 by taking samples from sick patients, purifying the sample, and then using the resulting virus-containing supernatant for inoculation in cell culture alongside uninfected controls otherwise provided the same treatment. Thus, according to his own stated criteria, SARS‑CoV‑2 has been isolated."
Problem with this answer is on p.2 of the link to the first pdf supplied (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article) under "Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation":
"We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.com)."
Therefore, whatever the researchers think was isolated could have come from 1) fetal bovine serum or 2) antibiotics/antimycotics and NOT FROM THE SAMPLE.
There is nothing in the article confirming the "additives" were free of what was finally isolated prior to isolation?
Positive control is mentioned at bottom of p.5 in pdf. What about negative control for a proper control experiment?
The second linked article (Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like coronavirus that uses the ACE2 receptor) employs both positive and negative controls (https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12711) described under section titled "Virus infectivity detected by immunofluorescence assay". This paper is from 2013, and is not about sars-cov-2 but bat SL-CoV-WIV1 isolated from bat faecal samples in Vero E6 cells.
So the first paper has no positive and negative controls and was polluted with "additives" prior to isolation.
The second paper does not show Sars-Cov-2 isolation.
Growth and Maintenance of Vero Cell Lines (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657228/) talks about African green monkey kidney cells for Vero cell lines.
If I was doing such tests I would check to make sure any additives were free of what was finally isolated. I don't see any statement stating this was done prior to isolation.
So pure isolation is still in question...
Which is a virus and which is an exosome?
https://vern0.me/Qs.png
https://www.bitchute.com/video/q81nCK05aZ0x/
This video explains isolation of a virus or how it should be done in a way anyone can understand.
Finally……