Friends,
I've
said this before once or twice about some document or online interview,
and it is definitely true with this one: listen to Dr. Andrew Kaufman
go through the history of the science articles "proving" SARS (whether
SARS-CoV-1 or SARS-CoV-2, a.k.a. "Covid-19"), and I guarantee you'll
never believe another official "party-line" word about Covid,
whatsoever.
I was listening to Dr. Andrew Kaufman, M.D., last night here at a lecture he provides on his website. And as I say, if you ever listen to one online explanation of what's going on,
listen to this one. Why? Because Kaufman knows what he's talking about and he does a thorough job explaining his research.
One would expect that of a forensic psychiatrist who has, among other things, a Certification in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry (2011) from the American
Board of Psychiatry and Neurology Board, a SUNY Upstate Medical
University Fellowship in Forensic Psychiatry, and he was a Resident in Psychiatry at the
Duke University School of Medicine. And among other things, Kaufman was
a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical
University, Vice President, Psychiatry Faculty Practice Corporation,
SUNY Upstate Medical University, a Medical Director of Faculty Practice,
SUNY Upstate Medical University, and an Assistant Director, Forensic
Psychiatry Fellowship, SUNY Upstate Medical University. Interestingly,
Kaufman has been a Consulting Expert Witness, Syracuse University Law
School. Kaufman has also made it his business not to be too specialized
in one discipline; he reads scientific papers of all sorts, especially
in chemistry and biology because as he said in another talk,
psychiatrists today pretty much just prescribe drugs, and he wanted to
know just what the heck the drugs he was being recommended to prescribe
actually did! (This is very important, actually, and below I include a
short segment of his talk on this from an interview.)
So,
like, yeah. He's credentialed. Credentialed and conversant with all
things relating to medicine, not least of which is how people fool
themselves, become mislead, and embrace falsehoods.
In his lecture linked to above, Dr. Kaufman details in a PowerPoint presentation how Nature,
the most prestigious (certainly one of the top two or so in the world) of science
publications, had an article out in 2003 about how researchers had fully
"isolated" SARS-CoV-1; the 15 May 2003 article in Nature titled: "Koch's postulates fulfilled for SARS virus"; see https://www.nature.com/articles/423240a#Sec2.
As for the 2003 Nature article, the title says Koch's Postulates have been satisfied in isolating the
virus; however, as soon as you begin to read the article, the authors
immediately admit (in the second paragraph) that they're running a
"bait-and-switch" on you. The Koch Postulate was a ruse. They in effect
say: "We're not actually gonna use Koch's Postulates, but rather the six-criteria revision of them by Rivers".
Who is Rivers? Thomas Milton
Rivers, 1888 to 1962, is described as "the father of modern virology,
and back in 1937 Rivers "redid" Koch's Postulates. Rivers softened the
strictures of Koch because Rivers admitted they had been unable via Koch
to prove viruses cause disease! Imagine that. So right away, Nature LIES to its readers.
Rivers' "new" version of Koch's Postulates is a watered-down version
because, as noted, they had NEVER been able to fill Koch's Postulates regarding
viruses.
Kauffman explains how Rivers had written in 1937: "It is obvious
that Koch's postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases."
Kaufman avers that was true in 1937 and it is just as true today – something which modern "virology" would fight tooth and nail against admitting,
although some honest people do exist in science, such as the German
Stefan Lanka, who used to be a virologist till he came to understand it
is bunk; Lanka is famous – or ought to be – for proving in court that
measles are not caused by a virus.
- And
you need to remember that the entire concept of a "virus" was made up
by Louis Pasteur back in Koch's 19th century day; Pasteur imagined that
there had to be something smaller than bacteria causing illness because
he himself "discovered" bacteria (kinda sorta) and couldn't prove they
caused all disease. So he "postulated" something smaller, which he
called a 'virus', from the Latin for poison. Thus, when in the 1930s
they developed the electron microscope, they found all sort of genetic
bits and pieces floating about coated in protein, and they called these
viruses.
- Note the electron microscope doesn't image living,
moving-about things like a light microscope reveals bacteria doing. No
one has ever seen viruses doing what they are supposed to do: i.e.,
attack and rape cells, impregnate the raped cells with their own DNA,
get the cell to replicate the invading DNA until the cell explodes and
"sheds" viruses everywhere. Remember how they talked about people
walking around and "shedding" the virus?) Anyway, this is an amazing
narrative of the ruthless, rampaging viri warriors, especially
considering that viruses are not supposed to be alive in the first
place!
- And also remember that Kari Mullis, inventor of the
PCR test, before he died in Sep 2019, said repeatedly that it could not
be used to find an HIV/AIDS virus because it could not distinguish
between living and non-living material. You'll see a lot of official MSM
"fact-checks" online that Mullis did not say the PCR couldn't be used
on Covid – well, he died before the German, Christian Drosten, started
using it for that.
- Bottom line: now we know a lot of what they saw with the early electron microscopes are exosomes, a fascinating subject in itself, but these come from our own cells. Britannica describes them as: "nano-sized vesicles secreted from different cell types that contain any of various bio-molecules, such as proteins or nucleic acids." Rivers himself, actually, suggested this back in 1937, using the phrase "Fabrications of autocatalytic processes" to describe them. Exosomes are the same size as viruses are supposed to be, and some argue that there's no such thing as viruses; that scientists confuse exosomes with them, etc.
And
then of course when SARS-CoV-2 came along, they immediately linked it
(obviously so, considering what they named it) to SARS-CoV-1. And
Kaufman tirelessly goes through a number of more recent scientific papers supposedly
showing this and how the new illness is a supposedly virus-caused
malady, but again, one-by-one, Kaufman shows how the papers are faulty and that none of them fulfill Rivers' postulates.
Now,
Kaufman spends time pointing out that Rivers was not talking genetics,
such as scientists stress today. Supposedly, we don't need to do
"isolation" like they did "back in the day" because we have genetics and
genomes. I have myself been told this online. But I've written at
length to you before about how the genetics have been falsified in terms
of "isolating" Covid, and won't repeat that here. Kaufman does discuss
it in this lecture, though.
As
I say, Dr. Andrew Kaufman goes through the whole thing in detail and
reveals what all the science types ought to take the time to examine.
Kaufman has before now said that the heavy specialization in science is
very bad for the entire discipline.
At this site, Kaufman said:
(9:48) We're all more than these labels that represent the brief experience of our consciousness. And it would really be false to have to have everyone have a certain credential to speak about a certain thing because one one of the fundamental reasons why there's so much false results and findings in science is because of this compartmentalization and specialization and sub-specialization that people in one field don't have any idea what's going on in related fields that affect each other. Like even in psychiatry, for example, all the treatments in psychiatry are drugs these days and they're based on experiments done in brains of animals. And the psychiatrists do not actually look at that research or know how to evaluate it. So if that research is not valid, or doesn't really apply to the situation that they see in their clinical experience, they'll never know. So it is really important that scientists and physicians develop the ability to look at a broad range of different scientific material, and if you understand the method of science and the philosophy of science to challenge a thesis in order to validate it, and understand some statistics, then you should be able to read almost any scientific paper, and if you translate some of the language – because they use specialized terms – like I sometimes read papers in chemistry and physics just like I'm reading different area of biology, I've done research in the laboratory and worked in the biotechnology industry, and I've done epidemiology research and published research related to mental health and the law, and I've been a peer reviewer, and all of that has prepared me to be able to read scientific papers. 12:06
An P again:
To
sum up, Dr Kaufman gives an excellent and easy to follow explanation of
why "the science" behind Covid is both flawed and false. (The PowerPoint screens make him all the easier to follow.) And of course,
Kaufman is not alone. Thousands of doctors and scientists have been
questioning various aspects of Covid for over a year now, from many
angles. The criticism is increasing, especially now that vaccines are
being forced on entire populations. Kaufman and Dr. Tom Cowan and the
biologist Stefan Lanka are extreme in their dismissal of the entire
virus idea, but so what? That's science.
Science.
It's based on observation of natural phenomena, hypotheses are
developed from the observation, then long testing by both those who
developed the hypothesis and many who have no stake in that particular
hypothesis. Science is supposed to be "self-correcting", and peer-review
ought to have dismissed the papers Kaufman reviews, yet peer-review is
widely said to be completely broken.
But
the Scientific Method as I described above must be understood. That's
how the method worked with what Alfred Wegener did with plate
tectonics. In 1912, Wegener noted how South America and Africa look to
be made to fit together, and that observation of that natural phenomenon
led him to develop a theory that continents move. He was of course
ridiculed for decades, and by the time he died in 1930 (aged 50 years),
still widely dismissed as a fool (about this hypothesis, at least; he
was quite accomplished in other areas). Today, almost all geophysicists
accept plate tectonics.
So, remember this essential lesson: science
takes time! Jumping on the idea that a virus caused the pneumonia-like
illness in Wuhan, then jumping on the idea that it was related to
SARS-CoV-1, jumping then to implement vaccines based on the rush-job
genome developed for Covid-19, none of that jumping is how science is
supposed to work.
Unlike either mathematics or metaphysics, wherein you can actually prove
a theory, in Western Empirical Science you can only disprove a theory.
You can build up a probability of a hypothesis being correct, even to a
very high degree, over time, but by the nature of the discipline, you
can't "prove" a scientific theory as you can with math or metaphysics.
To
me, Covid smacks heavily of the Global Warming (now "Climate Change")
hoax. Two peas in a modern science pod, a pod of a plant that would turn
Western Empirical Science into a form of magic reserved for a
specialized priesthood who decide in a star chamber what was true and
what was not. One of the biggest conflicts in Global Warming early on
was that the early proponents of it would not share their research, so
other could test their hypotheses. Michael Mann of the University of
Pennsylvania still won't, despite long years of expensive lawsuits.
Covid info gets shared well enough, and that is one reason why criticism
of it can be brought to bear, as Kaufman does.
Therefore, if you are interested in why you have gone through a sort of Hell for the past year or so, listen to Kaufman.
As far as I am concerned, the whole Covid "spiel" is just a con.
An Préachán
No comments:
Post a Comment