–=–
Introduction And Summary
–=–

The purpose of this research project is to refute and put to sleep the popular, socially harmful meme that:

1. Viruses and indeed “germs” don’t exist, because apparently they don’t stand up to Koch’s postulates on bacteria.
   
2. Viruses are actually spawned internally, such as exosomes, and somehow appear inside the body (terrain) without external forces.
   
3. Therefore, the non-scientifically induced conclusion from these unproven ideas is that “Germ theory” is false. This loose paradigm is most often an attribution based off of a non-scientific, faith-based debate between germ theory and terrain theory.

After a deep dive into the subject, giving all neutrality and fairness to both sides of the apparent debate (actually, there was never any real debate, just a carefully crafted false dialectic), here is a summary of my conclusions, as shown and detailed in triplicate within the bulk of this research project:

1. The idea of the “non-existence” of viruses and germs is a non-sequitur (non-starter), even and especially according to the sources provided to prove the fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to back the “viruses don’t exist” model.
   
2. Koch’s postulates were never intended to be applied to viruses, only to bacteria, therefore they are simply not applicable to research into viral pathogens, a fact that even Koch himself was adamant about on the record. This factual history is obfuscated in any discourse, of course, to enforce the false narrative. History, be it true or false, is often used as a liar’s main weapon.
   
3. Ironically, Bacteria are listed in the definition of what a “germ” is, so it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that germs don’t exist while also promoting Koch’s specific bacteriological Postulates as evidence thereof. On a side note, without the appropriately labeled germ line, there would be no human or other life on Earth. This is an essential point, a self-evident Truth that will be explained below, and which destroys the whole false paradigm.
   
4. Most importantly, this entire paradigm rests on the clearly false dialectic (pre-meditated lie) that these two theories, germ and terrain theory, are somehow opposed to each other. In fact, they are very much compatible, complimentary, and in some ways quite dependent upon one another. A clean terrain (healthy systems of the body) is certainly more capable of responding to the presence of immunocompromising germs than a dirty or unhealthy terrain (such as that which causes a lowered immune system and response). Ultimately, this is another self-evident Truth. These two theories are not at all, in any way opposed to each other, except by the intentional manipulation and false dialectic provided by this so-called “Dr.” Kaufman and his parroting, profiteering cohorts, which is then repeated without understanding or scientific examination by their unwitting followers.

–=–
Comprehending The Nature Of The False Dialectic
–=–

Before we tackle the bulk of this false paradigm and expose what is obviously a deliberately misleading obfuscation and concerted twisting of facts, we must first rehash in our minds just what the Hegelian notion of this type of intentionally false dialectic consists of. It’s this concept of inventing and deliberating over a false dialectic instead of the actual positive scientific evidence held contrary to the false dialectic that must be understood here. The newly opposing dialectic acts as a sort of stand in, a fallacious strawman argument that is presented in the typical manner of Zetetic non-science, as a negatively closed consensus, where the burden of proof is passed from the inventor (based on a non-scientific methodology) to the skeptic. This new, negative theory is essentially a character attack on those that “believe” in what is scientifically known or currently best-theorized, or that is popular opinion.

And it’s very clever, casting faith-based doubt in the minds of the masses over that which they cannot actually see with their own eyes, despite the entirety of the published scientific methodology that offers meticulous proofs and photographic evidence and despite the open and active for-profit market of corporations that sell viruses and other germs for laboratory use. In other words, instead of proving that viruses don’t exist, which is in fact impossible (one cannot prove a negative), all others that “believe” in the popular comprehension of these physically unseen viruses are thus required to prove they do exist. But there are rules to this game, for at the same time the entirety of scientific and research journal materials submitted by all virologists and all other lab experiments around the world and throughout history are at the same time absolutely dismissed as unacceptable evidence. This, of course, leaves the scientific mind without any acceptable research or visual evidence while considering microscopic, unable-to-be-seen pathogens.

And so the false dialectic quite often relies not on proof of its own concept but of fallaciously “cancelling” that which is the proofs of the truth, creating in both sides of any argument the illusion of equal footing. This essentially boils down to a character assassination, but only after the scientific theory is turned into a meme, given a personification of sorts, so that those that support scientific outcome can be labeled as that persona, as virus-believers. Crazy germ lovers. Thus the character, the false persona created can then be attacked instead of the actual scientific evidence, even though there is no actual character to attack but what they create as part of their false dialectic.

We are constantly bombarded with such absurdities throughout social and other media platforms, be they mainstream or alternative. The resulting meme caused by the false dialectic is key to spreading and instilling a faith-based belief in the lie, by necessarily demonizing the truth and those that attempt to follow it. Even while 90% truth is being told within the false dialectic, the transplanted 10% lies and obfuscated facts are enough not only to mislead but to cause a denial of scientific thought and processes toward the determination of correct answers.

Let us refresh our understanding of the general Hegelian false dialectic by quoting from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

–=–

1. Hegel’s description of his dialectical method

(Note: most citations removed for ease of reading.)

Hegel provides the most extensive, general account of his dialectical method in Part I of his Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences, which is often called the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]. The form or presentation of logic, he says, has three sides or moments. These sides are not parts of logic, but, rather, moments of “every concept”, as well as “of everything true in general” (we will see why Hegel thought dialectics is in everything in section 3). The first moment—the moment of the understanding—is the moment of fixity, in which concepts or forms have a seemingly stable definition or determination.

The second moment—the “dialectical” or “negatively rational” moment—is the moment of instability. In this moment, a one-sidedness or restrictedness in the determination from the moment of understanding comes to the fore, and the determination that was fixed in the first moment passes into its opposite. Hegel describes this process as a process of “self-sublation”. The English verb “to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb aufheben, which is a crucial concept in his dialectical method. Hegel says that aufheben has a doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time. The moment of understanding sublates itself because its own character or nature—its one-sidedness or restrictedness—destabilizes its definition and leads it to pass into its opposite. The dialectical moment thus involves a process of self-sublation, or a process in which the determination from the moment of understanding sublates itself, or both cancels and preserves itself, as it pushes on to or passes into its opposite.

(Clint’s comment: The word sublate is defined as a verb, meaning to DENY. Thus, this sense of both preserving and also negating (pretending to “cancel”) that which is preserved leads to cognitive dissonance when armed with the well-organized false dialectic, which confuses or confounds the first or original fixed understanding. This is often labeled as “denialism.” But for the denial to exist and subsist, so too must the original theory be preserved. In other words, denial is like a parasite that cannot survive by itself. Denial must preserve the memory of its host to have purpose and meaning. Otherwise, the denialism itself would be open to cross-denial, to criticism, and to disproof. Thus that which is denied, the original, must be preserved in the false dialectic in order to redirect the brunt of criticism to the original. A parasite, like a virus, has no reason or intent and cannot therefore exist without its victimized, reprogrammed host. The false dialectic is necessarily a parasite, existing only to feed off of the denial and confusion created by its literal camouflage. The lie exists only to cover up and vampirically subsist on the truth. Thus the false dialectic cannot exist without the preservation of that which it parasites from. Or, considering Dr. Kaufman and his lies, one could say that the viral lie that is the false dialectic cannot be “isolated” from the host-truth. There is no purpose behind a virus (parasite) without an intended or accidental host. There is no purpose behind Kaufman’s false dialectic without an intention to reprogram the host theory. One cannot suggest that viruses don’t exist without the pre-existing and fixed idea that viruses exist in the first place. Without the original determination that viruses exist, there is no way to determine they don’t. The positive determination must come before the negative, dialectical dissolution. It cannot reasonably, scientifically, or logically stand on its own, lest it be immediately criticized and disproven. The host always inadvertently, unwittingly protects its parasite from harm.)

The third moment—the “speculative” or “positively rational” moment—grasps the unity of the opposition between the first two determinations, or is the positive result of the dissolution or transition of those determinations. Here, Hegel rejects the traditional, reductio ad absurdum argument, which says that when the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, then the premises must be discarded altogether, leaving nothing. As Hegel suggests in the Phenomenology, such an argument:

is just the skepticism which only ever sees pure nothingness in its result and abstracts from the fact that this nothingness is specifically the nothingness of that from which it results.

Although the speculative moment negates the contradiction, it is a determinate or defined nothingness because it is the result of a specific process. There is something particular about the determination in the moment of understanding—a specific weakness, or some specific aspect that was ignored in its one-sidedness or restrictedness—that leads it to fall apart in the dialectical moment. The speculative moment has a definition, determination or content because it grows out of and unifies the particular character of those earlier determinations, or is “a unity of distinct determinations”. The speculative moment is thus “truly not empty, abstract nothing, but the negation of certain determinations”. When the result “is taken as the result of that from which it emerges”, Hegel says, then it is “in fact, the true result; in that case it is itself a determinate nothingness, one which has a content”. As he also puts it, “the result is conceived as it is in truth, namely, as a determinate negation [bestimmte Negation]; a new form has thereby immediately arisen”. Or, as he says, “[b]ecause the result, the negation, is a determinate negation [bestimmte Negation], it has a content”. Hegel’s claim in both the Phenomenology and the Science of Logic that his philosophy relies on a process of “determinate negation [bestimmte Negation]” has sometimes led scholars to describe his dialectics as a method or doctrine of “determinate negation” (see entry on Hegel, section on Science of Logic; cf. Rosen 1982: 30; Stewart 1996, 2000: 41–3; Winfield 1990: 56).

–=–

It’s very important to understand that the biology of every false dialectic turns nothing into something, turns empty form into impossible substance, all due to the denial of the original or host form and its substance. When the parasite infects the host, something new is created, though nothing new is actually visible. The combination of host and parasite causes a perception of independent and subversive existence (the host acting against its own interest), just as any combination of men with plans is said to cause conspiracy (a plan between two or more people). The conspiracy is perceptional and relative to the combination. Without the combination, there is no conspiracy. Without the host, no virus can fulfill its purpose (plans). Without the original, the false dialectic has no reason to exist (it cannot be viral).

To be clear, there can be no negation of anything without there first being a positive thing to deny. Thus any denial of anything must preserve and negatively protect the positive (e.g., criticism) to promote the negation. This can be seen throughout our modern, so-called cancel culture. Cancelation is impossible without there first being a promotion (positive determination) to negate (cancel). Truth, in other words, must be preserved, highly controlled, and systematically criticized in order to promote a lie in its place. Without the truth, there is no lie.

What happens then, when, only after a state of unsubstantiated denial is mixed with a helping of cognitive dissonance, the false dialectic is established (that is, a dissonant and confusing preservation and equal perversion in the mind of the existence of that which is at the same time already denied — two seemingly correct determinations that stand opposed to each other considered to be equally true in the same spectrum)? The answer: that original truth, which is necessarily denied is in the mind determinately negated through fallacious logic, turning into the purest rarified product of denial, which is nihilism (belief in nothingness). Can nothing have substance? Can that which is not believed in also take up space in reality? Thanks to the false dialectic, that’s exactly what seems to happen in the mind of the dialectically (parasitically) infected. Nothing becomes something instead of nothing.

–=–
Gleaming The God Of Nothingness
–=–

As the best and most powerful example of the false dialectic, we must examine just how this strange concept of having a belief in the non-existence of anything (nihilism) is the key to maintaining every false dialectic. Examples of this type of false dialectic can be seen all over the sphere of our post-modernist, logic-based society, the greatest of negatively positive determinations (nihilistic rationales) being the non-existence of “God.”

But before this type of false dialectic can be established in the logic-center of the brain, the actual meaning of the word “God” must be targeted as a subject of denial. In other words, the non-belief in “God” requires the preservation of the truth that lies behind the concept of “God”, and so the entire argument against existence lies within the very possibility of existence. There is no purpose behind non-belief except as a direct opposition to that which is believed in the first place. Thus, as I covered in my last book, the actual NAME of God, translated as YHVH, was all but removed from modern “versions” of the Bible. The word itself, of course, predates the Bible. In other words, it was not the Bible that created “God” or Its meaning, but rather the Bible used the already well-established and defined term YHVH (properly pronounced Jehovah) as the NAME of the specific conception of what the actual Supreme Being of “God” is. Of the over 6,000 instances of the term YHVH used in older foreign language Bibles, only a handful of references to that NAME remain. In it’s stead was placed words like God, Lord, Master, and other non-descript, non-defined terms of the English arts. Therefore, the intended, fixed, and unchanging meaning of the word YHVH, after being replaced by such undefined terms as God and Lord, can in modern times be ignorantly disputed or denied.

So how does this word-magic qualify as a deliberate false dialectic?

The meaningless term God (e.g. Ba’al) was used to replace the very deliberate and meaningful term YHVH, causing and instant confusion of this terminology used throughout the Bible. The intent and meaning of the word (NAME) is completely lost to these replacement terms, being mere flattering titles rather than a specific, well-defined and understood, self-evidently True NAME. In other words, like the name “Germ,” the name YHVH as originally intended and defined was never intended to be debated, never intended to be denied, for to deny YHVH is to deny Existence Itself, to deny self-Existent, self-Evident Truth, to deny all Life, and to deny all of Nature and Its Law (LOGOS). This is to say that to deny YHVH is to deny the Existence of Existence (GOD), which is the very highest form of nihilism, the greatest religious false dialectic ever known to man. And it was as easy as wiping from memory the meaning of a single noun (name).

How is this particular false dialectic played out to the masses?

It’s quite clever, really. By inventing a strawman or false dialectical image of “god” to replace the specific NAME, a generic and specifically non-defined title that is undefined and generally anthropomorphized into some form of man or other personification within the halls of corporate religion, the entirety of the many denominations of so-called “Christian” religions as well as all men that do not adhere to such a legal corporate religious structure (so-called atheists and agnostics), or in other words the entire population of Earth have been sold a “God” that has no Name, no reason, and no definition. It’s a do-it-yourself God, where you choose what the word God means to you. And so the concept of belief and non-belief (a false dialectic) were introduced to a concept that was never intended to be questioned or denied. Those who do not go to “church” and who say they do not believe in “God” are fallaciously basing their opinion, their theory of “God” on this man-made– or rather, church-made rebranding and redefining of what was once a self-evident understanding of the Supreme Being. The word Being is a verb, an action, representing Life and Existence Itself, yet the modern delusion of the undefined, legal-corporate religion-based “God” that so many deny has been dialectically inverted into a noun, not the action of Being but a personification thereof. “God” was turned into an empty word with no Life, something outside or superior to Nature, to Existence, like some overseer watching his chemistry set from beyond. Yet nothing in the Bible supports this false dialectic. And in fact, as YHVH is mentioned only a few times in the modern English (dog-Latin) Bible, the NAME and Its meaning and intention is preserved in a way that allows it to be used as a host presiding over Its own dialectical denial, without which there would be no need for the word God.

It’s amazing to consider this dialectic, for the word God is actually used to “cancel” YHVH and Its meaning from the consciousness of man, completely altering the Bible and its message, and causing without exception an institutionalized mistranslation of the entire Bible thereof. It has caused man to deny his own reason for existence, the ultimate of nihilistic false dialecticals.

As for the term YHVH, as that which is and always has had a stable, unchanging definition as that which is Fixed, Permanent, unchanging, Self-Evident, and Self-Existent, as Existence Itself, was purposefully confounded and confused so that this meaning was lost. And this created a sense of grandiose cognitive dissonance, a denial of that which is self-evidently Existent. Here we find the second part of Hegel’s dialectic fulfilled, in that,

“…the “dialectical” or “negatively rational” moment—is the moment of instability. In this moment, a one-sidedness or restrictedness in the determination from the moment of understanding comes to the fore, and the determination that was fixed in the first moment passes into its opposite. Hegel describes this process as a process of “self-sublation”. The English verb “to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb aufheben, which is a crucial concept in his dialectical method. Hegel says that aufheben has a doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time.”

A loose translation might be to fool oneself by applying negative logic built on ignorance, or rather denial of the positive.

First the false dialectic of the empty word “God” is created, a strawman argument and false persona invented to specifically be attacked instead of the already well-known, unquestioned, and indeed quite fixed meaning of YHVH. Thus a new dialectical based on false information is established, being in and of itself quite negatively rational, for the actual Truth (YHVH) is not attacked, only the false replacement, the strawman generically called “God.” But when the population effected by the fallacy does not know the difference between the NAME YHVH and the generic term God, then what was fixed for so long suddenly “passes into its opposite.” The second moment needed for the false dialectic to be established and believed without proof is thus come to fruition.

Now all that is needed is the final moment, the final step leading to a faith-based false belief that both negates and preserves at the same time the Truth (origin), creating a state of institutionalized cognitive dissonance that feels to the believer to be a constant battle to maintain and defend, to the point where everyone else appears to the believer of the false dialectic to be in denial of what they themselves are actually in denial of. This sense of persecution is, more than anything, the driver behind the desire to defend and preserve the false dialectic. The church calls this as its right to propaganda mixed with the right of dispensation, or in other words, the act of peaceful or violent, voluntary or forced-evangelism.

At this point, the contradictions of the Bible toward these beliefs are completely and irrationally ignored, causing a constant and often degrading cognitive dissonance that includes the negation (denial) of certain false assumptions or determinations (incorrect opinions). Again, the strawman argument is considered defeated, so that the false dialectic may appear victorious and proven in the mind.

“God” does not exist. This is a true statement, but only when applied to the manmade images, symbols, and personifications invented around the false paradigm of the unknown term “God” invented to cause confusion and cognitive dissonance. And so, though it may sound like blasphemy to those infected by the parasitic false dialectic, the empty term God is a parasite that exists only to obfuscate the Truth of what “God” is actually supposed to be understood as, that is, as YHVH in its original intention.

The correct terminology for understanding is simply that: YHVH is Existence. Or, as the Bible instructs, YHVH is TRUTH. Thus, to deny YHVH is to deny Existence, to deny Truth. No wonder there is so much (purposeful) confusion within the false dialectic of Biblical religions. For this corporate Christianity necessarily must preserve the True God (YHVH) in order to, at the same time, present its own false dialectical of its own non-descript replacement (vicar) with no name or meaning but the flattering title of “God”. And so, in a feat of pure evil genius, both religious and non-religious men have been tricked into worshiping nihilism as their God, be it through false imagery (idolatry) or through the artificially induced dialectical of denialism known as nihilism.

–=–
The Matrix: Life In The Dialectic
–=–

Now, if we were to apply this three-step paradigm of illogical assumption that is the false dialectic to almost everything we do in legal society, we would find ourselves so bound up in this web of lies expounded upon by Hagel that one might say we live in a complete matrix (simulation) built solely upon these false dialectics. Be it religion, politics, history, legalism, money, education, or any other fictional institution of the arts we treat falsely and worship and practice as the Truth (God), we find a well-organized system of nihilistic processes. For any false dialectic to work the Truth must always be both sacrificed and at the same time fallaciously preserved for the dialectic to inflict the cognitive dissonance and parasitic denialism it needs to exist. That which is not self-existent (dependent on man’s opinion) is not that which is of YHVH (self-Evident, self-Existence). The false dialectic always exists dependent (parasitic) on some other dialectic, thus can never be Truth (YHVH) in and of its self.

The moral of this example story is simply this, to believe in YHVH is to not believe in, or more to the point to never put power or respect in anything manmade. YHVH is Truth, and only the Truth (YHVH) will set you free. Two songs come to mind…

Imagine being saved by zero beliefs…

Imagine no false dialectics…

Imagine only Truth.

Now, let us apply this understanding of the false dialectic model, putting on our long unused hats of neutrality, unloading our prejudices, and clearing our minds so as to uncover just what is this false dialectic being streamlined by the pretender Doctor named Andrew Kaufman.

–=–
The Movement Of Truth:
Scientific Methodology VS. Dialectical Beliefs
–=–

Greetings fellow Truth-seekers. And by this, to be clear, I mean those who seek the Truth at any and every cost, even at the expense and pretended comfort of one’s own ego, imagined reputation, commercial gain, and even when it requires standing up against the prevalent “cancel-culture” that thrashes truth-tellers into silence or outright obscurity. If that’s not you, or if you still believe the meme that there can possibly be two “alternative” sides of the singularly perfect Truth, then this article and indeed this blog is certainly not for you. For the Truth has no versions, no sides, and no alternatives. The Truth needs no dialectic or belief from men to exist, that is, TO BE EXISTENCE (YHVH) ISTSELF. Most importantly, for those caught up in the matrix of lies and disinformation presently choking the life out of every legitimate media source out there, we must always remember that only the Truth will set you free, and the Truth Exists whether you like it or agree with it or not. You’ve been served…

Unfortunately, this term “truth” has been coopted by various devils and daemons masquerading as one of us. And, without contemplating our own dispositions, by so virally infecting our minds with such unverifiable, faith-based untruths, many of us have unwittingly become one of them, parroting with a sense of desperate, desolate sincerity and unintended treachery what we want to believe is the Truth. We therefore become the very daemons (guides/dividers) of these false, predatory prophets. And yes, many have turned from reason to a purely logical critique, ignoring the proper methods of scientific research and debate toward this cancelation policy when we don’t like what we hear as an educated response – especially when a lack of self-responsibility or just willing ignorance is the real problem. It only takes one tool used by one unwitting fool to inoculate disinformation into so many others with ones own brand of repeated, unvetted, fallacious rhetoric — or, for that matter, one psychologically reprograming agent provocateur’ to do the same. I take no pleasure in stating these Truths about our collective, willful parroting and movement of disinformation as “news.” But it must be stated, at the risk of this cancelation policy we pretend to be offended by while in the same breath using it indiscriminately ourselves, that the infection of mass delusion and willful ignorance amongst the most Truth-seeking among us has been relabeled and commodified as the often ambiguously nonsensical and wholly ineffectual “alternative news.”

Today, I must put back on the hat that has gotten me chastised, banned, generally dismissed, and sometimes socially cancelled from the so-called “truth” movement (an assorted web of well-laid, interconnected logical fallacies and false dialectics), in order to once again smash the lies that are causing exactly what the Bible warns us against — that we shall be both saved by and destroyed by knowledge, or the willful lack thereof. Unfortunately, on one side, the term knowledge is translated into false information, as lies and false dialectics being worshiped as perceived, faith-based truths, or what the Bible refers to as our own, self-destructively ignorant force — an abandonment of scientific methodologies mixed with a turning away from even self-evident Truths (YHVH). Yet the Truth, that is, knowledge of and therefore practice only of what is Truth is the only practice that will save us. Faith in the Truth, that the Truth must and will overcome, is the foundation of spirituality — not to be confused with modern spiritualists or other “New Age” type logics and mysticisms. Such information and symbols of the real should not be confused with True knowledge, any more than technology (art) should in any way be confused with True Science as conducted using the “scientific method.” Technology (artifice) is opposed to science, for art is never Truth and proper science seeks only the Truth. Modern so-called “science” is but a flattering title, a brand name used to hide the Truth – that modern science is really just modern art (technology), a new age religion called Scientism.

For those that don’t understand the difference between Natural science (the study of Nature) and this cult of scientism that seeks to re-evolve and reorganize Nature to its own image, please watch my documentary on the subject, here:

–=–

The art of lying should never be given a place amongst us, on any platform or “news” outlet, nor should any flattering title be respected as proof of lies labeled as the truth. For that reason, today I put my own primary research up against one of the most prolific liars and provocateurs I’ve seen, Dr. Andrew Kaufman. This research tome is designed to lift people out of what is becoming a cult of personality, a new form of cancel-culture, as that which shuns and pretends discredit to anyone that “believes” in what are called as viruses. As ridiculous as this notion really is, I simply cannot stand the thought of so many people being led astray while in the middle of the viral biological weapons attack that this genetically modified, gain of function induced “coronavirus” is. This wolf in doctor’s clothing must be stopped. But only you can stop him, for his existence requires belief in him and the lies he tells. Are you still able to recover from your own false beliefs? Are you able to still view in neutrality the following research that absolutely, 100% disproves this unfounded notion that viruses don’t exist?

To be clear, I have the utmost respect of anyone that in turn respectably points out to me an untruth that has mistakenly worked its way in to my own psyche, and therefore becomes embedded into my works, my writings, my movies, my rhetoric, etc. For we are all horrifyingly susceptible to the art of the lie, of succumbing to the liar, and ultimately of becoming party to the lie, from religion and scientism to even the most innocent and sincere of the fallacious concepts (logics) of men (the low-hanging fruit of the tree of knowledge). Therefore, I respectably must attempt to correct the current lies being put forward to the “alternative” masses about viruses and germ theory. If you seek the Truth, this is dedicated to you. If you have faith-based beliefs in the designs of men or that you should be listening to those that claim to present “both sides and let you decide,” the very mantra of Fox News, then you really need to consider the side where Truth lives. Truth has only one home, one side.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman, to name but one instigator and provocateur’ among several, has been making rounds on the alternative, so-called “truth” airways spreading a cornucopia of disinformation, suggesting his admitted, purely personal BELIEF without any methodology of science backing it up, that “viruses don’t exist” and that “exosomes are viruses.” Like the typical self-help guru, his completely unverified theory implies that all so-called infectious or virulent disease (i.e. viruses) actually develop from inside the body, and not exterior from it. Not surprisingly though, for a not so modest chunk of change, the discredited and ostracized so-called “Dr.” Kaufman will provide products and services that are conveniently available for heavily re-tailed purchase to ease you of this body-burden, not forgetting a consultation fee from hell. This nonsense tactic of covert advertising is amazingly being used as the foundation of a whole meme-based movement, yet another alternative matrix web to get caught up in, parroted openly and without proofs even while the viral SARS-Cov2 agent and its syndrome (Covid-19) is being virally spread all over the world. This is not irony, for as my documentaries show, this genetically modified coronavirus is doing exactly what it was redesigned and given gain-of-function (man-made mutation) orthologues to do.

This belief in the non-existence of “viruses” is becoming so prevalent that it’s interfering with even basic conversational exchanges on the subject. In other words, one cannot talk of a “virus” without being accused of some sort of strange heresy, as if belief in what is viral, foul, contagious matter external from the human body is somehow sacrilege to the New Age religion of Zetetic, Scientistic (unscientific) thought. And so, I am helplessly watching as many friends and colleagues fall deeply into these lies, picking up the torch of scientism and practically crucifying anyone that attempts to speak with actual scientific research behind his rhetoric, no matter how self-evident or well-understood that knowledge is. Information (art) is the new, false religion of science; the consensus-building social influencer is today the new “scientist.” And it is spreading at a pace that can only be called as Biblical. So rampant has this meme become that many approach the subject like fundamentalist religionists, believing they have uncovered the secrets of the cabal, of the universe, and of the human body, and therefore presenting the information as a spiritual awakening instead of as what it actually is — a scientific inquiry with the goal of finding evidential and experiential Truth.

A proper, scientifically bound theory is neutrally proposed with the sole purpose of being tested, vetted, scrutinized at all angles, and finally verified, repeated, or disproven. The scientifically-bound theory has no beginning and no end, for the purpose of the theory is in fact to be improved upon or eventually disproved. There is no final theory, only the best observable facts. However, in Zetetic, Scientistic, faith-based or consensus-based belief systems, the role of the theory is reversed; inverted to the point that the theory stands immediately as Truth upon its conception and therefore transfigured into an idol. Through this inversion, the non-scientifically-bound theory stands firm in the mind and is not subject to data that might disprove or alter that theory. This is no different than any other religious belief. Instead of a guidepost pointing toward and encouraging further research, the theory becomes an impassable barrier to further study or open dialog. A scientifically-bound theory invites failure and disproof. A Scientistic, consensus-based theory is used as a blunt weapon to beat down all dissenting data, discussion, and proofs against it. When theory becomes law in the mind of unwittingly ignorant believers, then it can no longer be justified to be called as a theory, and certainly has no place in the scientific methodology.

Meanwhile, indeed, my people are being destroyed on many fronts by technical information (terms of art), a matrix of synthetic biological code virally sweeping through the dualistically ignorant and unbelieving population. In short, we are being told we should not believe in the virus that is currently infecting us and our friends and family. What better way to destroy a people than to cause them to be blind to the very synthetically re-engineered biological weapon introduced to control, subdue, make helplessly afraid and ill, and ultimately sterilize, maim, or kill them?

By this logic, if I simply don’t believe in a gun or a Taser, then they can never hurt me, right?

–=–
Scheming Memes Made Of Dirty Words
–=–

It’s very important to understand the power of words and how they influence our grasp of reality. Part of the problem is that belief in any word in and of itself causes reality to dissipate behind the perception of the meaning and true application of the word. In other words, a talented trickster can make someone deny reality by redefining or outright denying the word that represents it. If one can be made to dismiss the representation, the symbol, the word or the science behind the word, then one can be made to dismiss the truth altogether. By denying the power, intent, and purpose behind the word used to describe something real, it is the real that is made to appear unreal by the perception of the beholder. Just as beauty lies in the eye (spirit) of the beholder, so too is the truth susceptible to the power of the mind, of false information. In a very strange happenstance, the beholder develops a divergent sort of prejudice against the word, and often a dystopian view of whatever intention or truth lies behind that term of art.

So let’s start by examining the two key words that re-present that backbone of this false debate. Those words are germ and virus. To do so, we must be extremely careful not to apply our own perceived, prejudicial meaning that suits our own egotistical belief system. Instead, we must call on the power of neutrality, learning what was in the first place intended for us to understand by the use of that word. For this, we must venture back in time, to the origin of the word we seek to understand. At the same time, we must remain in a state of neutrality, a mode of learning without prejudice or pretended foreknowledge, releasing ourselves from the currently circulating mob mentality and disinformation campaigns that lead us astray in the first place. It is often the case that before we may learn the Truth, we must unlearn everything else. We must view the subject from a fresh, unbiased perspective, humbling ourselves and restraining our social and political lusts. We must become as children, learning without preconception.

Before we start, let us first acknowledge that these terms virus and germ are intended to be specific (special) terms used only in the art of science and medicine, and therefore carry a meaning that is not general, not the same as its common definition. Every art has its own terms, and this must be understood before moving on.

TERM OF ART –A special word or phrase used in relation to a particular subject or activity (Cambridge Dictionary)

These terms of art, virus and germ, therefore, must be relearned in order to both know and not misdiagnose their meanings in our common parlance. If you are going to use medical and scientific terminology in your discourse, then you must understand what that terminology means in that separate, private realm of the language arts.

There are three main tenets to Dr. Kaufman’s false claim:

1. viruses don’t exist.
2. exosomes are self-created viruses.
3. germ theory is false while terrain theory is true.

These three arguments are presented separately, meaning they are not co-dependent on each other. This is to say that disproving one theory does not disprove the others. Together, they form an extremely unvetted and yet loosely relative theory by Dr. Andrew Kaufman. In order to show why this theory is provably false, we must first examine each of these terms of art (words) and their usage by Kaufman and those that parrot his extremely fallible fable.

The most logical place to start here is in the etymological history of this word virus, discovering where it originated and what it was intended to mean in the various language arts of old. If you should suddenly find yourself feeling like this detailed inquiry into the Truth is becoming threatening to your current belief system, you should. But this is not a bad thing. You are only a beneficiary of scientific enquiry and Truth if you choose to be.

Virus (n.) – late 14c., “poisonous substance,” from Latin virus “poison, sap of plants, slimy liquid, a potent juice,” from Proto-Italic *weis-o-(s-) “poison,” which is probably from a PIE root *ueis-, perhaps originally meaning “to melt away, to flow,” used of foul or malodorous fluids, but with specialization in some languages to “poisonous fluid” (source also of Sanskrit visam “venom, poison,” visah “poisonous;” Avestan vish- “poison;” Latin viscum “sticky substance, birdlime;” Greek ios “poison,” ixos “mistletoe, birdlime;” Old Church Slavonic višnja “cherry;” Old Irish fi “poison;” Welsh gwy “poison“). The meaning “agent that causes infectious disease” is recorded by 1728 (in reference to venereal disease); the modern scientific use dates to the 1880s. The computer sense is from 1972. (etymonline.org)

viral (adj.) – “of the nature of, or caused by, a virus,” 1944, see virus + -al (1). Sense of “become suddenly widely popular through internet sharing” is attested by 1999, originally in reference to marketing and based on the similarity of the effect to the spread of a computer virus. Related: Virally. (etymonline.org)

Well, that certainly changes things, now doesn’t it?

The word virus comes from the etymological meaning of poison or foul contagious matter.

So what does this first big step do to your belief that “viruses don’t exist” or that we create viruses only in our bodies? If you are being neutral and seeking knowledge, then this must mean you don’t believe in poison. You don’t believe in venomous frogs or snakes. And that snake bit you had as a kid wasn’t therefor the cause of the severe infection you got immediately after the bite? And so, for this belief to be stated accurately when referring to any and every published definition of the word virus, you must therefore believe that poison (virus) or venom (virus) cannot harm you, because poison (virus) doesn’t actually exist. My, isn’t that a conundrum?

Now before you start attacking the messenger instead of the message, let’s examine further our common, dumbed-down, dog-Latin (English) language. In the older languages from which our current, literalized slave-language English was copied, butchered, and derived from , the words they spoke were not just empty vessels of literalness, not just insubstantial nouns (names), but instead carried with them the notion of some familiar anomaly of action, description, or attribute. In the case of this word virus, it was only ever meant to be understood and used as that which is “poisonous.”

But now we need to define poison, and so on, and so forth.

I can personally assure you that the bushy irritant called “Poison Ivy” exists, and that its title is appropriate to express the viral nature of its rash and itch-causing oil. After all, I was once victim to such an interaction if it upon my man-flesh. Ouch! But let us consider why this plant is called as a poison (virus – meaning viral). The answer, again, is because it contains on its greenery a viscous, foul, contagious matter (oil) that is poisonous (viral) to human skin. If all I had to do was say I don’t believe in Poison Ivy or its viral matter and all that bubbling rash and itchiness would go away, that would certainly be a medical breakthrough. But whether or not I believe in virus (poison), virus certainly believes in me.

Let me give you another example. How about sexually transmitted diseases? They are certainly viral, as statistics show, meaning they spread and corrupt indiscriminately upon certain sexually simulated contact, right? But the prison psychiatrist Kaufman claims virus grows in the body. So, does that mean Dr. Kaufman has every sexually transmitted disease known to man in his manly man parts just waiting to grow randomly and cause symptoms? Is that in his dating website profile? And isn’t it odd that his symptoms only actually happen when he gets desperate and hires a prostitute, paying extra for no condemns (just as a fictional example, of course)? That’s about as legitimate and believable as when I was told by my short-lived ex-girlfriend that my particular viral, sexually transmitted infection probably came from a toilet seat! Then I asked, what about these little crabs? Again, I’m sorry to say, I certainly experienced this particular virus in my younger, more care free days, and it felt like a glass rod was broken inside my thingy while a hundred miniature Hobbits were digging for root vegetables in preparation for second dinner around my collective pubic hairs.

Hey, if we can’t be honest and speak of our past mistakes and misplaced trusts, what will we ever accomplish in real life?

But as the influencer– err, oh; I mean psychiatry “doctor” has suggested, perhaps you don’t believe in viruses, and therefore don’t believe in sexually transmitted diseases? If only I knew this back then, I could have simply twinkled my nose, snapped my fingers, and just non-believed like some magical spell and presto, no viral disease! And it wouldn’t have felt like my dickie-doo was transported temporarily to a burning hell full of broken glass when I took a pee-pee. But alas, my belief in the existence of Gonorrhea being an actual viral infection kept me in unnecessary pain, and so experientially I can say to you that yes, it painfully exists.

Unfortunately, I can also assure you that crabs are very much a viral parasite too: “... An obligate ectoparasite with a ROUND BODY and large claws. The terminal part of each leg has CLAW-LIKE APPENDAGES whose grasp is designed to match the diameter of pubic or axillary hair. They can tell when they have hit a blood vessel when beginning to feed by SENSING CHEMICALS RELEASED at the site of the wound.” (–Crab louse (nih.gov))

Remember that term, obligate parasite. We’ll come back to it shortly.

Now, the astute reader will surely be saying or thinking right now: that Clint is an idiot – he’s saying the clap is a viral infection, and he seems to not know that Gonorrhea is a bacteria not a virus. Crabs certainly aren’t viruses, man…

Silly rabbit…

The logical thought process you should have is not I’m right he’s wrong, but rather, I’m curious what his definition of the word “virus” is compared to my own, and I wonder what his perception of what a virus actually is in reality could be as compared to my own perceptions? Maybe we should confer and make sure we are speaking the same language.

You know, the secret to True Peace and Love is in that last sentence, my friends.

Oh, what a world it would be…

Metaphorically, “Dr.” Kaufman’s line of bullshit, his carefully scripted set of hand-selected words, is just as viral as any sexually transmitted disease, bacterial or otherwise. It infects and poisons the mind, alters the normalized programing, and causes unhealthy symptoms of mainstreameitis and its opposite, conspiratardness. His lies are poisonous. Get the idea? Bacteria are pathogenic, which means infectious. They spread virally (infectiously) the more contact we have with each other.

But here’s another conundrum… How can you believe in bacterium if you don’t believe in viruses? Are you aware that germ theory includes both bacterium and viruses, calling both as germs? So if you don’t believe in germ theory, how can you believe in bacteria, and even more interestingly, how can you believe in Koch’s postulates for detection of the germ called as bacteria?

Oh dear, that’s a tough one.

Is bacteria an infection? Is bacteria therefore infectious? Bacteria aren’t viruses, but are bacteria viral in their spread? Bacteria isn’t a viral infection, but it spreads virally, just as false information does. The problem is not what actually happens in Nature (Reality), the problem is that the words used to describe what happens in Reality have multiple different meanings, intents, and representations. Every word is at least a double-edged sword.

Is bacteria considered a poison? Of course. And this brings up another ailment I’ve had experience with, that of food poisoning. Bacteria and viruses are well-known agents in the cause of food poisoning. But if you don’t believe in viruses, and thus don’t believe in poison, then you don’t really need a stomach pumping, right? And if you don’t believe in germs, and bacteria is a germ, then you don’t believe in food poisoning. Man, this is getting weird. You didn’t actually need anti-biotics for bad bacteria, because you don’t believe in infectious matter spread by bacteria that would make you sick in the first place, right? And when a doctor tells you that no, you can’t cure a virus infection with antibiotics because they only work on bacteria, you must disagree with the doctor because germs, including bacteria, don’t exist, right? I suppose you had no zits either, because you don’t believe in pus (virus).

You see how ridiculous and futile this exercise is becoming? And yes, it’s meant to be really annoying to you. It worked!

I got bitten by a Black Widow spider years ago and ended up in the hospital on an I.V. and some anti-viral medicine. If venom is virus, then this course of action makes a whole lot of sense. It saved my life, bringi my temperature down from 104 within just a couple hours. It was one of the few times I actually had a good experience and outcome in a hospital setting!

Black widow venom treatment – In the most severe cases, your doctor may inject you with antivenin. It’s a drug made from substances in the blood of horses. Antivenin neutralizes the black widow’s venom (virus). That means it prevents it from causing you harm.

In case you are wondering, the definition of Venin is – any of several poisonous substances occurring in snake venom. So snake bites are a form of virus (poison)? Absolutely. Duh! But you don’t believe in viruses, right?

Let’s fast forward from these etymological sources to Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the English Language to see what a virus was considered to be in 1828:

VIRUS – noun – [Latin See Virulent.] Foul or contagious matter of an ulcer, pustule, etc.; poison.

VIRULENT – adjective – [Latin virulentus, from virus, poison, that is, strength, from the same root as vir, vireo. See Venom.] 1. Extremely active in doing injury; very poisonous or venomous. No poison is more virulent than that of some species of serpents. 2. Very bitter in enmity; malignant; as a virulent invective.

VENOM – noun – [Latin venenum, venor, to hunt, to drive or chase; venio, to come. See Venus, etc.] 1. Poison; matter fatal or injurious to life. Venom is generally used to express noxious matter that is applied externally, or that is discharged from animals, as that of bites and stings of serpents, scorpions, etc.; and poison, to express substances taken into the stomach. 2. Spite; malice. – verb transitive – To poison; to infect with venom [Little Used, but envenom is in use and elegant. Venom may be elegantly used in poetry.]

VENUS – noun – [Latin ventus, venenum; Eng. venom to poison, to fret or irritate. These affinities lead to the true origin of these words. The primary sense of the root is to shoot or rush, as light or wind. From light is derived the sense of white, fair, venus or it is from opening, parting; and from rushing, moving, comes wind, and the sense of raging, fury, whence Latin venenum, poison, that which frets or causes to rage. These words all coincide with Latin venio, which signifies to rush, to fall, to happen; venor, to hunt, etc. The Greeks had the same idea of the goddess of love, viz. that her name signified fairness, whiteness, and hence the fable that she sprung from froth, whence her Green name.] 1. In mythology, the goddess of beauty and love; that is, beauty or love deified; just as the Gaelic and Irish Diana, swiftness, impetuosity, is denominated the goddess of hunting. 2. In astronomy, one of the inferior planets, whose orbit is between the earth and Mercury; a star of brilliant splendor. 3. In the old chimistry, a name given to copper.

–=–

Author’s Note: I find it poetically fulfilling to discover the usage of ancient terms in the romantic (non-literal) languages. Here, like the effect of a virus, of poison, and of the venomous snake, the feeling of love (i.e. lust) falls upon us, rushing metaphorically through our veins like an infectious pathogen, filling us with unplanned passion. Imagine if you were able to speak with such abandon of rule and prejudice, instead of the rote, dead, slave language called as dog-Latin “English” that we all try and make sound pretty, and which most often causes semantic disputes that have nothing to do with reality. Case in point…

POISON – noun – poiz’n. [Latin pus.] 1. A substance which, when taken into the stomach, mixed with the blood or applied to the skin or flesh, proves fatal or deleterious by an action not mechanical; venom. The more active and virulent poisons destroy life in a short time; others are slow in their operation, others produce inflammation without proving fatal. In the application of poison much depends on the quantity. 2. Any thing infectious, malignant, or noxious to health; as the poison of pestilential diseases. 3. That which taints or destroys moral purity or health; as the poison of evil example; the poison of sin. – verb transitive – To infect with any thing fatal to life; as, to poison an arrow. 1. To attack, injure or kill by poison. He was so discouraged that he poisoned himself and died. 2 Macc. 2. To taint; to mar; to impair; as, discontent poisons the happiness of life. Hast thou not With thy false arts poison’d his people’s loyalty? 3. To corrupt. Our youth are poisoned with false notions of honor, or with pernicious maxims of government. To suffer the thoughts to be vitiated, is to poison the fountains of morality.

Poison is ANYTHING viral (virulent). Get over it already.

As science advanced, and before it turned into the current institutional cult of scientism, we should at this point understand the difference between what is a bacterial infection and an infection caused by a virus. This is a fairly simple task, of course:

–=–

“The pandemic has made clear the threat that some viruses pose to people. But viruses can also infect life-sustaining bacteria and a Johns Hopkins University-led team has developed a test to determine if bacteria are sick, similar to the one used to test humans for COVID-19.

“If there was a COVID-like pandemic occurring in important bacterial populations it would be difficult to tell, because before this study, we lacked the affordable and accurate tools necessary to study viral infections in uncultured bacterial populations,” said study corresponding author Sarah Preheim, a Johns Hopkins assistant professor of environmental health and engineering.

The findings were published today in Nature Microbiology.

Sick bacteria are stymied in their function as decomposers and as part of the foundation of the food web in the Chesapeake Bay and other waterways. Determining viral infections in bacteria traditionally relies on culturing both bacteria and virus, which misses 99% of bacteria found in the environment because they cannot be grown in culture, Preheim says, adding that tests of viral infections in uncultured bacteria are expensive and difficult to apply widely, not unlike the early stages of COVID-19 testing.

The key to making a test of viral infections for uncultured bacteria faster and more affordable was to isolate single bacterial cells in a small bubble (i.e. an emulsion droplet) and fuse the genes of the virus and bacteria together once inside.

“The fused genes act like name tags for the bacteria and viruses,” said lead author Eric Sakowski, a former postdoctoral researcher in Preheim’s laboratory who is now an assistant professor at Mount St. Mary’s University. “By fusing the genes together, we are able to identify which bacteria are infected, as well as the variant of the virus that is causing the infection.“

The resulting test provides a novel way to screen for viral infections in a subset of bacterial populations. The test allows researchers to identify a link between environmental conditions and infections in Actinobacteria, one of the most abundant bacterial groups in the Chesapeake Bay and one that plays a crucial role in decomposing organic matter, making nutrients available to plants and photosynthetic algae.

Though the researchers developed this tool studying the Chesapeake Bay, they say their approach could be widely applied across aquatic ecosystems, shedding light on viral ecology and helping predict — and even prevent — devastating environmental impacts.

“This testing tool allows us to track viral infections more easily, so we can monitor these infections to see when they are most likely to have important environmental consequences,” Preheim said.

Sakowski said the new test could someday also affect how we treat bacterial infections.

“Viruses show potential for treating infections caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria,” he said. “Knowing which viruses most effectively infect bacteria will be critical to this type of treatment.“

Preheim’s team also included Johns Hopkins doctoral student Keith Arora-Williams, and Funing Tian, Ahmed A. Zayed, Olivier Zablocki, and Matthew B. Sullivan, all from the Ohio State University. Support was provided by the National Science Foundation and the Gordon E. and Betty I. Moore Foundation.

–=–

I know, I know, you don’t believe in viruses, so this whole study must be part of the conspiracy to promote the germ theory, despite the fact that there are literally thousands of similar published, reproducible studies on viruses? Bastards.

But here we come to understand that even Kaufman’s precious weapon and uninformed talking point on bacteria, used to promote Koch’s postulates against the existence of viruses, can actually be virally infected. LOL! That certainly throws a monkey wrench into that particular theory. Perhaps bacteria also grow spontaneous viruses inside of them, Mr. Kaufman? By this logic, I can grow snake venom in my body and poison myself to death. If that’s true, then perhaps I will someday spontaneously combust before I’m self-poisoned, though neither sounds like a good death.

The more I look into the origins and oddities of this disinformation campaign against viruses, the more I am reminded of the cancel-culture phenomenon playing out in social media today. While I attempt to provide as much evidence and proofs as possible on the table, the “viruses don’t exist” crowd is quickly becoming a canceler of the legitimacy of anyone that speaks of viruses, including the typical trolls and drive-by commenters on many websites.

But let us pause for a moment and go back to the notion that viruses are parasitic by their nature. Parasite is a loose term, and we need to acknowledge the following…

“Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that hijack cellular pathways to complete their life cycle.” (see source below).

PARASITE – noun – [Latin parasita; Gr. by, and corn.] 1. In ancient Greece, a priest or minister of the gods whose office was to gather of the husbandman the corn allotted for public sacrifices. The parasites also superintended the sacrifices. 2. In modern usage, a trencher friend; one that frequents the tables of the rich and earns his welcome by flattery; a hanger on; a fawning flatterer. 3. In botany, a plant growing on the stem or branch of another plant and receiving its nourishment from it, as the mistletoe.  (–Webster’s 1828)

INOCULATE – verb transitive – [Latin inoculo; in and occulus, the eye.] 1. To bud; to insert the bud of a tree or plant in another tree or plant, for the purpose of growth on the new stock. All sorts of stone fruit, apples, pears, etc. may be inoculated. We inoculate the stock with a foreign bud. 2. To communicate a disease to a person by inserting infectious matter in his skin or flesh; as, to inoculate a person with the matter of small pox or cow pox. When the latter disease is communicated, it is called vaccination.

INOCULATE – verb intransitive – To propagate by budding; to practice inoculation. The time to inoculate is when the buds are formed at the extremities of the same year’s shoot, indicating that the spring growth for that season is complete.

–=–

We are talking about the inoculation of parasites here. They are also called viruses (noun/name). As you can see, the word parasite and inoculate are, relatively speaking, one and the same process. Like poisonous mistletoe is budded onto its host tree, so too is a virus budded (connected through receptors) to its host. INOCULATE IS DEFINED AS COMMUNICATING DISEASE, THAT IS, AS CAUSING HARM! But it also defines a biological, obligate parasite.

But we must also consider the biological process of life, specifically the RNA and DNA, and that many attributes of the human condition lay in the viral encoding and informational process. What is passed from mother to son or daughter, including the sex of a child, is done so through the virome.

–=–

“RNA, abbreviation of ribonucleic acid, complex compound of high molecular weight that functions in cellular protein synthesis and replaces DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) as a carrier of genetic codes in some viruses…

“The miRNAs are of particular importance. They are about 22 nucleotides long and function in gene regulation in most eukaryotes. They can inhibit (silence) gene expression by binding to target mRNA and inhibiting translation, thereby preventing functional proteins from being produced. Many miRNAs play significant roles in cancer and other diseases. For example, tumour suppressor and oncogenic (cancer-initiating) miRNAs can regulate unique target genes, leading to tumorigenesis and tumour progression.

“Also of functional significance are the piRNAs, which are about 26 to 31 nucleotides long and exist in most animals. They regulate the expression of transposons (jumping genes) by keeping the genes from being transcribed in the germ cells (sperm and eggs). Most piRNA are complementary to different transposons and can specifically target those transposons.”

(Source: Encyclopedia Britanica link – RNA | Definition, Structure, Types, & Functions | Britannica)

–=–

Ah, the germ line… Did you know that your sexual reproduction tools are called the germ line? Don’t believe in germs? LOL!

“A germ line is the sex cells (eggs and sperm) that are used by sexually reproducing organisms to pass on genes from generation to generation. Egg and sperm cells are called germ cells, in contrast to the other cells of the body that are called somatic cells. Germ line actually refers to the sex cells of an organism.” (Source–> http://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/germ-line)

–=–

Just what do you think a germ is? Let’s stop and consider that question…

How do plants reproduce?

Germination: the coming into existence and growth from Angiosperm or Gymnosperm, the growth of sporelings from spores, such as the spores of fungi, ferns, or bacteria, and the growth of the pollen tube from the pollen grain of a seed plant.

But you don’t believe in “germs,” right?

Or is it that you just don’t understand the terminology and intent behind the word itself? Perhaps it’s that disinformation agents like Andrew Kaufman use incorrect or incomplete data sets and non-technical (common) definitions to misguide and confuse you? In other words, you must stop thinking of germs as mere objects, but instead as objects that have a germinating functionality, or in other words, objects that virally infect (in a good way) other objects in order to create life itself. No germline, no humans.

Another way to consider what a germ is would be to ask the question, how do viruses reproduce? Do they go to singles bars or meet online only to hook up for a sultry one night stand? No, they germ. It’s not just a name, its a functionality, a type of action and orientation. You see, germ theory is not as simple as you thought it was. And in fact, the complex nature of life wholly depends on viruses, bacteria, and other parts of the biome making their sweet sweet form of love through the germination process.

GERM – noun – [Latin germen.] In botany, the ovary or seed-bud of a plant, the rudiment of fruit yet in embryo. It is the base or lower part of the pistil, which, in the progress of vegetation, swells and becomes the seed-vessel. 1. Origin; first principle; that from which any thing springs; as the germ of civil liberty, or of prosperity. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)

–=–

Still don’t believe in germs? Fortunately for us, our lives don’t depend on nihilistic false-beliefs.

Sexual intercourse is the passing of “germs,” that is sperm, from the male to the female. While the pomp and circumstance of human sexual behavior is certainly different than that of other critters, the purpose behind such behavior and connection is the same – the passing of the germ line.

And then there’s the importance of real, mother to child breastfeeding. We all promote it without consideration of why, but do we really know why it is so important?

Neonatal Virome: Human milk protects against pathogenic viruses:
Author Dr. rer. nat. Markus Brüngel
09.2020

“It is now widely accepted that the bacterial colonisation of an infant’s intestine after birth is a gradual process and that the intestinal microbiome forms quite quickly. In an article published recently in the renowned journal “Nature”, researchers reported that this principle also applies to colonisation by viruses [1]. The type of feeding also has a significant influence on the virome: human milk ensures that fewer pathogenic viruses occur in the baby’s intestine. These findings once again confirm that human milk plays an important role in the protection against infections in early childhood!”

–=–

To put it simply, since bacteria are so easily infected by viruses, the mother’s milk helps prevent such viral infection.

All of this research is late to the game, for the following reasons:

–=–

In the study of microorganisms, bacteria frequently steal the limelight. During an influenza outbreak in late 1800, it was the bacterium Haemophilus influenzae isolated from sputum that was first presumed to cause disease. During the 1918 influenza pandemic, urgent efforts to isolate this causative bacterium failed and it was not until the 1930s that a filterable agent, a virus, Influenza H1N1, was identified as the culprit [1]. Similarly, in the pursuit of understanding human commensal micro organisms, the last 20 years of research has focused almost exclusively on bacteria and their regulation of our immune and nervous systems. In comparison, very little is known about eukaryotic and prokaryotic viruses that also inhabit asymptomatic humans. Given that the name virus was coined from the Latin word meaning slimy liquid or poison and that viruses are considered obligate pathogens, a possibly “beneficial virome ”is surprising to many. The late start for viruses in the commensal micro-organism field is in large part due to our inability to readily culture or detect them, as was the case during the discovery of the influenza virus. We do not yet know the eukaryotic cell or bacterial host of most viruses, and there is no universal 16S ribosomal RNA equivalent, as in bacteria, allowing for rapid taxonomic characterization. Technologies such as metagenomic shave only recently enabled identification of viruses in healthy human tissues. This initially involved sequencing all DNA or RNA in a sample (human, bacterial, and viral), and computationally aligning the massive number of sequences to identify those that resemble known viral genes. An improvement on this approach now involves filtering samples to purge eukaryotic cells and bacteria so that only virus-like particles (VLPs) remain for sequencing. However, since the virome consists of both temperate bacteriophages within bacterial genomes and free VLPs, both total and VLP sequencing will likely provide greater representation of all viruses. Nonetheless, with the approaches taken thus far, studies have revealed viruses are abundant in human feces, blood, skin, lung, oral cavity, and an array of other tissues of healthy and diseased individuals. (Source–> (PDF) Illuminating the human virome in health and disease (researchgate.net))

–=–
Villainizing Viral Vesicles
–=–

In consideration of the “viruses are exosomes” concept (non-theory) put out by Kaufman with absolutely no research or science behind the claim, admittedly stating that it’s just his sole, unscientifically garnered opinion, most who hear his fallacious rhetoric mixed with many non-relative truths have a faith-based belief in his words. And yet, with just a token bit of general research, one can easily debunk this opinion at every angle. Kaufman is believed not because he is a scientist, but because those that allow him to speak and those listening simply do not vet or verify his disinformation. The easily disprovable lie becomes viral, and another disciple of nonsensical Kaufmanism is born, not unlike the effect of any other religious or spiritual guru.

But trust me when I say, if I can do the simple research to find the following, so can you, and one would think, so could Kaufman. But the following journaled science would ruin his whole product and consultation marketing scheme, where he pretends to be a trusted medical doctor instead of a washed out prison psychiatrist.

So let us take a journey into the science of exosomes and their host endosome, so as to understand their purpose, construction, and the ease to which they are infiltrated with viruses.

First, we must know that an exosome is a vesicle excreted from the endoscope of a cell in ones’ own body, which can be highjacked by viruses (viral, contagious matter). 

VESICLE – [ vĕs ′ĭ-kəl ] A small fluid-filled sac in the body. A membrane-bound sac in eukaryotic cells that stores or transports the products of metabolism in the cell and is sometimes the site for the breaking down of metabolic wastes.

–=–

As we’ve seen, the term virus refers to anything infectious, like pus or poison, as “Foul or contagious matter of an ulcer, postule, etc.; poison.” (–Webster’s 1828). But we must also remember, virus is merely the noun (name) form of the adjective VIRULENT. Thus many things, including computer viruses and even ideas, can be called metaphorically as a virus. They are virulent.

VIRULENT – adjective – [Latin virulentus, from virus, poison, that is, strength, from the same root as vir, vireo. See Venom.] 1. Extremely active in doing injury; very poisonous or venomous. No poison is more virulent than that of some species of serpents. 2. Very bitter in enmity; malignant; as a virulent invective.

–=–

“Virulence is a pathogen’s or microorganism’s ability to cause damage to a host. In most contexts, especially in animal systems, virulence refers to the degree of damage caused by a microbe to its host. The pathogenicity of an organism—its ability to cause disease—is determined by its virulence factors. In the specific context of gene for gene systems, often in plants, virulence refers to a pathogen’s ability to infect a resistant host.” (Wikipedia)

So when we speak of a virus in terms of disease and not in health or benefit, we speak of that which is virulent. But we should not then confuse the term “virus” as a general name for that which is virulent (harmful), which means it can transfer its biological information to take over and cause cells to release virally infected vesicles (e.g. exosomes) that carry the virus (contagious RNA code) to other cells, etc. The vesicle (exosome) is no more than a carrier, a vehicle for the viral material. And most importantly, the vessel (vesicle) transporting that foreign virus most often does so without “knowing” it has been infected. This is not unlike a mailman delivering bombs or anthrax-laced letters to each mailbox without awareness of his actions or the downline consequences thereof. 

This is important because exosomes are in their normal capacity very much healing agents, which stop inflammation and other symptoms of disease. To call them inceptively as viruses is at best ill-informed (ignorant) and at worse an organized psychological operation to confuse and allow these psychopaths (pseudo-scientists) to continue inventing and spreading viruses to people that now don’t even believe viruses exist. This lie by this already ill-famed PSYCHIATRIST (non-scientist) Dr. Kaufman and others cannot be allowed to continue. 

Below is the description and science behind just what an exosome is and how it functions in normality and after viral infection. All links are active so you can read for yourself the whole study, and the quotes that follow a link are copied therefrom to tell the story of exosomes and their roll.

If you’d like to read the psychiatrist’s opinion ( I refuse to call it a theory anymore), you may do so here:

Link–> https://www.weblyf.com/2020/04/dr-andrew-kaufman-and-the-exosomes-coronavirus-truth/

–=–

And so, as with most disinfo agents, we find lies mixed in with mostly truths. Yes, non-virally infected exosomes are beneficial to health and go around the body to fight inflammation and deliver beneficial (viral) material. This is not news, but rather the very definition of an exosome that anyone can find with a simple internet search. However, the notion that viruses magically appear in exosomes in some feat of spontaneous generation is ludicrous and without any scientific fact. But if you consider his consultation and product sales, the root of this lie it turns out is a well laid plan. Invoking a new age type of mindset in the listener, he pretty much just tells people what they want to hear, that all disease can be cured by the body because the body is the cause of all disease. Therefore, my magical, expensive-as-hell product will cure you from your own emotional detriment. It’s self-help on steroids.

And it would be great, if it were true, if it weren’t a 100% disprovable lie to take advantage of a scared, irrational, already sick population.

–=–

“He (Kaufman) is a grifter. He made a website the second the pandemic broke out and started doing all his interviews with David Icke, and on there he was charging $1000 for a basic 1 time medical consultation.”

–Anonymous commenter

–=–

Now, here’s the truth about exosomes, which are extremely susceptible to viral infection.

Again, to read the whole study, click on the links above the quotations below:

https://www.intechopen.com/books/novel-implications-of-exosomes-in-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-cancer-and-infectious-diseases/exosomes-and-their-role-in-viral-infections

“Currently, HCV and hepatitis A virus (HAV) are the only viruses that have been shown to incorporate their full-length genomic RNA within exosomes [31]. Another virus that can utilize the endosomal/exosomal system to deliver viral cargo to uninfected cells is the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1)… Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites that hijack cellular pathways to complete their life cycle. In recent years, an accumulating body of data has emerged suggesting that some viruses can also manipulate with the vesicular trafficking machinery for their assembly, egress, and transmission…”

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00090/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4378677/

“Exosomes are small membrane bound vesicles that carry biological macromolecules from the site of production to target sites either in the microenvironment or at distant sites away from the origin. Exosomal content of cells varies with the cell-type that produces them as well as environmental factors that alter the normal state of the cell such as viral infection. Human DNA and RNA viruses alter the composition of host proteins as well as incorporate their own viral proteins and other cargo into the secreted exosomes.“

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23441990/

https://stemcellofatlanta.com/difference-between-stem-cells-and-exosomes-lung-repair-and-virus-interruption-discovery-1-3/

https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/12/563/eaaz3426.full

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/viruses/special_issues/viruses_exosomes

“Certain viruses deliver their genomes into intraluminal vesicles, which then serve as vehicles to transport the genome along the endocytic pathway to the nuclear periphery for replication. Moreover, endosomal vesicles can be diverted to the exocytic pathway and secreted as exosomes. Exosomes containing viral genomes can promote viral spread by infecting adjacent, or in some cases distant permissive cells, while evading immune recognition, thanks to the absence of viral glycoproteins on the exosome membrane. Conversely, exosomes containing viral proteins or nucleic acids have been found to activate immune responses in myeloid cells in certain cases. Antigen-loaded dendritic cells can activate T cells by directly transferring exosomes to an interacting T cell, although some viruses, like HIV, have evolved to utilize DC to T-cell vesicle transfer as a route for productive infection.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30416610/

“It has been documented that viral hijacking exploits the exosomal pathway and mimics cellular protein trafficking. Exosomes released from virus-infected cells contain a variety of viral and host cellular factors that are able to modify recipient host cell responses. Recent studies have demonstrated that exosomes are crucial components in the pathogenesis of virus infection. Exosomes also allow the host to produce effective immunity against pathogens by activating antiviral mechanisms and transporting antiviral factors between adjacent cells.“

https://naturemicrobiologycommunity.nature.com/posts/viral-infection-by-exosome-mimicry-the-havcr1-npc1-pathway

“Viral infection by exosome mimicry: the HAVCR1/NPC1 pathway – Exosomes play a significant role in cell-to-cell communication. Viruses highjack exosomes hiding in their lumen to avoid immune recognition and enter the cell. However, how exosomes deliver their cargo into the cytoplasm still remains a black box.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567134820302537

“Highlights:

• Extracellular vesicles contribute to intercellular communication.
• Virus-infected cells release extracellular vesicles containing viral components that promote infection.
• Extracellular vesicles may contribute to spread COVID-19 virus as they transfer such receptors as CD9 and ACE2.
• Upon entry, COVID-19 virus may be directed into the exosomal pathway, and its component is packaged into exosomes for secretion.
• Extracellular vesicles may serve as a treatment agents for COVID-19 virus.“

–=–

In the simplest of terms, Kaufman’s idea that exosomes are self-created viruses and therefore viruses don’t exist would be like blaming the vehicle (vesicle) as the cause of an accident, completely ignoring and excusing the driver (factor) that caused the vehicle (vesicle) to act abhorrently. The vessel is not aware of the drive (virus), so blaming the vesicle without acknowledging its viral infection is ludicrous. Yet this ridiculous notion is key to the false dialectic Kaufman and others are promoting.

I assume the above research is sufficient to completely discredit this psychiatrist’s ignorant claims, again showing how a good liar always includes layers of the truth relative to a false conclusion. And I must admit, he’s a good liar. For even after I heard an interview the first time, it caused me to double-check my own understanding. I’m glad I did, and I hope you are happy to benefit from my verification process as presented here… that is, if you haven’t already socially cancelled me for my shocking non-belief in the non-existence of viruses.

Now let’s move on to Kaufman’s supporting notion that, according to “Koch’s Postulates” published in the year 1890, no virus has been “isolated.”

Here we uncover another, very clever lie through obfuscation of the facts.

Let me just say here that if I ignore the last 130 years of publications and journaled science, I would be agreeable that indeed, viruses don’t fit the criterium that was laid out in Koch’s postulates. And let me say as well that if I ignored the last 130 years of inventions that I would also believe that airplanes, helicopters, and space rockets were also impossible and non-existent. So right away, we find that a statement based on a publication in 1890 doesn’t hold much weight in the year 2021 – unless you simply don’t bother to check for updates over the last century plus 30 years of research and for that matter, historical documentation. Unfortunately, I’m sorry to say, many in the alternative so-called truth movement are just gullible enough to fall, over and over, for these often well-organized, legerdemain disinformation tricks. Some will say, hey Clint, that’s just rude. And to that I will say, no, that’s obviously the Truth. And again, only the Truth, even about yourself, will set you free.

Kaufman is very clever in the way he debates his stance that no virus has been “isolated.” But let me just say from the start here that his argument is based on a specific and purposefully instigated logical fallacy. That fallacy takes root in, you guessed it, the language arts. Words.

Here again I stress the importance of using the correct terms of art for each art or science one is speaking to. If I speak of legal law, I use the legal meaning of words. If I speak of botany, I use the Latin terms of that art to name those flora. If I’m an actual practicing medical doctor, which Kaufman is not, then I would use the accepted medical terms of art. And most importantly, if I’m a virologist, I would use the terms of art that are used in that field of study. Every field has its own terms, and with those terms come their own officious definitions. Even Psychiatry has its own terms of art. And finally, there is the common language, which are the word terms we all use on a constant, conversational level in our dumbed-down society.

So if I wish to cause confusion and deception in my audience, I would certainly use the common definition of the word isolation instead of the term of art that best defines that word for the purpose and intent and practice it was being used to describe. And that’s exactly what Kaufman did. He used the general, common definition of the word isolation to pretend to prove that no virus has ever been isolated. But quite simply, the common word and the scientific term of art do not carry the same exact meaning. Only a con artist would mix terms to fallaciously discredit scientifically achieved research.

Kaufman’s hand-picked definition in his public presentation comes from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, which states:

Isolate – “especially: to separate from another substance so as to obtain pure or in a free state.”

Now compare this general meaning to the medical meaning as pertaining to viruses: “Virus isolation is a very specific method for diagnosis of viral infection, but culture techniques need a week or more for completion and require specialized laboratory equipment and skills. Early identification and sampling of affected horses is critical for virus isolation as horses shed viruses for only a short period after infection.”

Kaufman’s trick here is to state not the truth, but a fact that is irrelative to the truth. His extremely disingenuous argument is simply that the “isolation” done on bacteria and other specimens cannot be done to viruses. And, of course, this is a true statement. In fact, it is the very reason his argument is fallacious. For it is certainly well-known in the industries involved and as defined above that virus “isolation” is absolutely dissimilar to other forms of isolation, and should not be confused as being the same method. Virus isolation is a “very specific method,” meaning not the same. And so here we find Kaufman’s false dialectical broken down to its framework. Viral isolation is not the same procedure as other isolation technologies. Simple. Yet Kaufman masterfully uses this non sequitur as if it’s somehow not known. And indeed, unless you take the time to study the process, it’s very easy to be fooled by this false dialectic, that no virus has been isolated. The actual, full, true statement should read: No virus has been isolated according to the general, non-specific meaning and intent of the word.

In attempting to answer this question of virus isolation, I tried to explain it as I could this isolation misnomer to a Kaufman worshiper:

–=–           

Point by point:

1: The study you link is literally based on a limited sample taken from a man in Washington State that had contracted SARS-Cov2 in China. So how can you then say this study shows that SARS-2 is not infectious? There would be no study without the infection in the first place.

2: Using vero cells for SARS-2 is bad science… Vero cells (green monkey kidney cells cloned repeatedly from the 1960’s) have lead to many misleading, scientistic claims, including that hydroxycloroquine and even Prozac helps with human infection:

“Whereas hydroxychloroquine does not appear to stop SARS-CoV-2 from infecting Vero cells, it fails to do the same for human lung cells in a dish. According to research from Stefan Pohlmann, head of the Infection Biology Unit at the German Primate Center in Gottingen, and his collaborators, the devil was in the details of how the cells interact with the SARS-CoV-2’s dreaded ‘spike’ protein. Human lung cells contain at least two different enzymes that can help the virus sneak through their membranes. With Vero cells, however, only one of those modes of entry is available – and it turns out to be the one that hydroxychloroquine will block. Pohlmann and his team published the results in the Journal of Nature on July 22. For him, it’s a clear example of why using human lung cells is really important in studying this pandemic virus. Vero cells should be “handled with caution,” Pohlmann says. “It’s true that the Vero cells are very popular. But unfortunately for this particular aspect of Covid-19 research, they are absolutely not useful. I think this is now clear to the field.”

3: The conclusion completely disagrees with your cherry picked, out of context facts listed here:

“…we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate AND HUMAN cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E^ and Vero CCL81 cells. We also examined big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h (hours) post-infection… NO CPE WAS OBSERVED IN ANY OF THE CELL LINES EXCEPT IN VERO CELLS…”

Ok. What about the human cells? The conclusion continues…

“…In contrast, HUH7.0 and 293T cells SHOWED ONLY MODEST VIRAL REPLICATION, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection… Together, the results indicate that SARS-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-1 in terms of susceptible cell lines… Replication in HUH7.0 cells also increased quickly after an initial eclipse phase but plateaued by 24 h (hours) post-inoculation in the intracellular compartment at 2 x 10 TCIS 50/ml and decreased after 66 h (hours) post-inoculation. Virus was not detected in the supernatant of infected HUH7 cells until 36 h (hours) post-inoculation and exhibited lower titers at all timepoints… THESE RESULTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS REPORTS FOR SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, which suggested similar replication dynamics between zoonotic CoV strains…”

You are not looking at the results, you are only looking for select factoids that can be used to prove your belief, which when put into context, have no relevance as stand-alone facts. You ignore the whole study and all those like it just because you found a tiny, out of context fragment to support your belief. In fact, this very limited study was specifically designed to test only (not all) specific cell lines that would grow the virus as a cell substrate, and not one human was re-infected. This does not prove in any way it’s not infectious to humans, only that it did not grow in these particular, extremely small and insignificantly incomplete, very commonly used, specifically cloned cell lines used for research, which are again commonly used as cell substrates to grow all sorts of viruses.

Do you know how many different cells are in the human body? Do you understand that this limited selection of cells used within this study is not in any way uncontrolled, meaning it only covers these specific cell lines and excludes so many others? Do you understand that no human was used as a lab rat?

…To compare your assessment that this single study proves Covid SARS-2 is not infectious to humans due to this one research paper alone tested on 3 or 4 out of many human cell types… that would be like saying all screws are useless and cannot be used because we only tested all those screws with the extremely limited-sized nuts we have in stock. Therefore our conclusion is that most screws have no counterpart nuts, and therefore cannot be used in construction. There are about 30 trillion cells in the human body, as an estimate, with over 200 types categorized, for instance: blood cells (erythrocytes), fat cells, nerve cells (neurons), lung cells, skin cells, and so on… The study also states that,

“HAVING ESTABLISHED ROBUST INFECTION WITH SARS-CoV-2 in several cell types, we next evaluated the cross-reactivity of SARS-CoV antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2…”

Did you miss that part, or doesn’t it jive with your belief? The only conclusion this study shows is what most show, which is that more research is needed, and that SARS-2 grows just as well on Vero cells as SARS and MERS does. Nowhere does it conclude what you conclude, that no virus was ever isolated anywhere. The fact that there was viral infection at all, let alone post infectious growth, should be your first sign that the virus exists. The point of the study was certainly not to prove or disprove the virus, nor was this point that viruses might not exist mentioned in the study in any way.

Another example of cells used is this: “Protein Sciences, whose recombinant DNA platform is based on insect cells. Their Sfg cell line comes from the fall armyworm and highly effective as a rapid growth medium. It has been used for several years in producing influenza vaccines. In 2017, Sanofi Pasteur bought Protein Sciences and is using this same platform for their newly developing Covid-19 vaccine which will allow them the flexibility to make millions of doses of vaccine quickly.”

I can assure you that the purpose of the study you are selectively misquoting is to find the growth medium of cells particular to COVID, or in other words, its purpose is to make it grow for vaccine and study purposes, thus they tested the standard cell lines mentioned. There is nothing more to see here. As for your fallacious line about wanting to see full sequencing (isolation), you are barking up a tree that has no say in the matter. If you don’t believe in these sequences, again, I cannot help you.

The end of the report states the following: “Because research has been initiated to study and respond to SARS-CoV-2, information about cell lines and types susceptible to infection is needed. Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. We also examined an available big brown bat kidney cell line (EFK3B) for SARS-CoV-2 replication capacity. Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h postinfection (Figure 3, panel A). No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to >107 PFU at 24 h postinfection. In contrast, HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems, including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs, are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (–).”

It’s very important to understand that these cell-lines are all manmade, collected many decades ago, and cloned over and over for research purposes. They are not natural, and are used only for the purposes of growing pathogens. None of these cell-lines are in your body unless they are injected (inoculated).

“In addition, SARS-CoV-2 did not replicate in bat EFK3B cells, which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintains a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.“

In other words, they are looking for host cell substrates to grow the virus on, and this was a test of those various cell lines commonly used, not to show whether or not infection happens in humans. Finally, the discussion states:

“We have deposited information on the SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 viral strain described here into the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research Resources Repository (website) reagent resources (American Type Culture Collection… and the WORLD REVERENCE CENTER FOR EMERGING VIRUSES AND ARBOVIRUSES, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH (website), to serve the SARS-CoV-2 reference strain for the United States. The SARS-CoV-2 fourth passage virus has been sequenced and maintains a nucleotide sequence identical to that of the original strain from the United States. These deposits make this virus strain available to the domestic and international public health, academic, and pharmaceutical sectors FOR BASIC RESEARCH!!!”

And now we are back to the point of my Wagging The Dog documentary, which is biological weapons research masqueraded as basic research, where these sequences you doubt the existence of are being cataloged and displayed for anyone to acquire. If you have further questions on these sequences, I suggest you take it up with the proper institutions listed above instead of trolling me and others in youtube comment sections. I assure you it has no effect except to waste my time in response so that the pervasive bullshit spewing from you doesn’t infect others. Now kindly piss off and move on to your next prey. I will not allow any more disrespectful comments from you. Respectful, yes. Douchebaggery, no. Trolling will be deleted.

–=–
Koch Or Pepsi:
The Illusion Of Scientific Choice
–=–

The problem is that now there are who knows how many “fans” of Kaufman’s nonsense that on a constant bases parrot Kaufman’s lies, stating that the coronavirus “isolates” aren’t actually “isolated.” The word game is in full throttle. And so, having no idea what they are talking about, the gullible, unstudied audience spreads Kaufman’s dis-info, making the insistent and completely fallacious, impossible claim that the virus hasn’t been isolated, when in fact the opposite is true. But it’s only true if the correct term of art is used, that is, the correct scientific term and its intended, limited meaning.

Firstly, let me direct you to two papers that explain the whole process of isolation as it pertains to the coronavirus, so that you get the actual methodology and story from someone that actually works with and isolates these viruses. That seems like a reasonable thing to do. You might want to choose to read these articles after finishing mine own, so you know before reading them what the term isolation actually means in viral research, instead of having a false belief grafted into your psyche by this psychiatrist that in fact has never worked a single day in his life with viruses or their isolation:

“I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight the global pandemic”
Link–> I study viruses: How our team isolated the new coronavirus to fight the global pandemic (theconversation.com)

“Sigh, yes, the ‘COVID virus’ is real”
Link–> Sigh, yes, the ‘COVID virus’ is real – Virology Down Under

Here’s an important excerpt from that second article to get us in the mood to speak about both isolation and the non-relevancy of Koch’s postulates to viruses:

———————————————————————————————————-

Koch’s postulates – derived from his work on bacteria – were formally proposed at a lecture by Koch in 1890.

From Causation and Disease: The Henle-Kock Postulates Revisited, by ALfred Evens. [5] Remember – these were made before anything was really known about what a virus truly was. They were designed with bacteria in mind, and as a guide not a dictum.

–=–

For context, that’s before we had ever visualized a human or plant virus, before organ or cell culture of viruses, before sequencing of viral genes or genomes and before we had labelled antibodies we could as probing tools to show viral proteins in tissues. It was known that this toxic stuff (virus, from Latin, translates to ‘slimy liquid, poison’) was smaller than bacteria because it passed through filters that stopped them, and yet could still cause disease. Discovery of human viruses came later still (Yellow fever virus, 1901-1921).

Koch’s postulates were never intended to be rigidly applied, even then. In fact, trying to strictly adhere to them probably delayed the discovery of viruses.[11]

So let’s move away from the 1890s… this revision by Fredericks and Relman (from Fenner and White’s Medical Virology (Fifth Edition) is much more relevant to recent decades.

SARS-CoV-2 replicates in human pancreatic islets

To determine the susceptibility to ex vivo infection, human pancreatic islets isolated from four human donors were exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and expression of viral spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) protein, as well as endocrine cell markers, was analysed. S and N proteins were not detected at day 1 (not shown), but became readily detectable at days 3 (Fig. 2a) and 5 (Fig. 2b) post-infection (Extended Data Fig. 5). Pancreatic islets treated with 5 µM remdesivir, a polymerase inhibitor with potent in vitro anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity⁵², did not stain positive for S or N proteins, indicating suppression of SARS-CoV-2 replication. Quantification of viral N-protein expression in infected islets confirmed robust infection ranging between 20% N-positive cells at day 3 and 34% at day 5 per infected islet (Fig. 2c).

(Link–> SARS-CoV-2 infects and replicates in cells of the human endocrine and exocrine pancreas | Nature Metabolism)

–=–

From several other lectures and info on viral isolation and purification techniques, I paraphrase:

Isolation of viruses requires a totally different system than isolation of bacteria. Viruses don’t have any similarity to bacteria or the eukaryotic system… It’s a totally different approach to cultivate it (virus).

“Eukaryotic: of, relating to, or being an organism (as of the domain Eukarya) composed of one or more cells containing visibly evident nuclei and organelles: being or characteristic of a eukaryote. The first known use of this term was not until 1957, almost 70 years after the original Koch’s postulates were published. In other words, those postulates don’t necessarily apply to viruses, which are not of the domain we find bacteria in. Comparatively, Koch’s postulates, when compared to modern viral research, are like instructions on how to build a square wheel.“

Cells fall into one of two broad categories: prokaryotic and eukaryotic. The single-celled organisms of the domains Bacteria and Archaea are classified as prokaryotes (pro = before; karyon– = nucleus). Animal cells, plant cells, fungi, and protists are eukaryotes (eu = true).

–=–

This is very important, for the false non-scientific theory of Kaufman is that viruses are somehow created inside the body, out of thin air. Yet viruses do not exist as such in the animal or Eukaryote kingdom. This would metaphorically be like theorizing that a tiger can spontaneously (without viral spread and infection of the coded information) grow fish scales. This doesn’t happen in Nature, for each of these lifeforms has its own kingdom, its own domain, and generally each species has its own viruses that do not spread to other species (with some exceptions). SARS-Cov1 required an animal intermediary, whereas SARS-Cov2 is artificially mutated (gain of function) to bypass this requirement and be infectious by human to human contact. This function was added in the laboratory, as my documentaries show.

Prokaryotes are further divided into two main kinds of organisms: bacteria and archaea. Some examples of prokaryotic organisms include the common bacteria E. coli, the archaea M. Smithii which helps humans break down polysaccharides in the intestines, and Deinococcus radiodurans, a species of bacteria known for its extreme radiation resistance… Prokaryotic organisms are so named because they consist of prokaryotic cells. There are two fundamental kinds of cells, prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells contain a membrane-bound nucleus of DNA and several well-defined independent cellular organelles. Eukaryotic cells are the basic building blocks of all complex multicellular life, including human beings. (Link–> Prokaryotes Examples To Learn From | Science Trends)

For clarity, humans are in the kingdom Animalia, which is in the domain Eukarya. All organisms therein are considered eukaryotic. Viruses are neither prokaryotic nor eukaryotic. Viruses are in a separate category known as obligate intracellular parasites. By themselves, viruses do not carry the biological material necessary to reproduce; they can only replicate themselves by infecting prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells. (Source–> Is a Virus a Prokaryote or a Eukaryote? (reference.com))

In other words, there is no total isolation of a virus from its host. The whole purpose of a virus, as RNA (biological information), is to be inoculated (infected) into a host so that the full host/virus result comes to fruition. The host becomes the virus. There is nothing to isolate, except what is the term of art that describes the isolation process for viruses, which is again completely different than Koch’s postulates allow for. Kaufman certainly knows this to be true, but conveniently obfuscates this knowledge to support his lie– err, theory.

And the parrots repeat over and over the wrong information to each other, forming a cult-like belief system based on absolutely nothing but the trust in this completely inexperienced psychiatrist that uses no scientifically-achieved data sets to verify his opinions.

Most importantly here, we can see that Koch’s postulates are strictly speaking designed only for application toward Prokaryotic infections in the domain of Eukaryotic species. Why would anyone suggest therefore that Koch’s postulates should likewise apply to a viral (parasitic) infection of that which is not of the Prokaryotic domain? Why indeed… The answer should be becoming painfully obvious. The postulates were, as we’ve noted, altered in the 1930’s to include viruses that are not of either the Animalia or Bacteria kingdoms. This alone creates a huge, cavernous hole in Kaufman’s “theory,” and misaligns most of his supporting non-primary data. Imagine if I required a banana and all other species of fruit to meet the requirements of an apple to therefore be part of the fruit domain? They are a completely different species. There’s no room in my domain for you, banana. You’re to soft and squishy and you bruise like my great grandma. We apples are a class all our own! According to Kosher Dill postulates, you therefore don’t exist! Bananas are obviously the product of and exosomal release caused by stress on the environment, not real fruit…

But in this case, comparing postulates designed so intentionally for bacterial infection to what is a completely different viral infection is like comparing the mechanism of action of a cruise ship to a canoe. Kaufman and his ilk simply chose to ignore the updates to these 130 year old postulates, ignoring all the science behind them since, cherry-picking only that which supports the “alternative” argument, which in the end, appears to be based on nothing at all but obfuscation of already proven scientific fact. In other words, Kaufman has created a very well-laid false dialectic designed to “cancel” the scientific understanding of viruses and germs. And because Kaufman’s unscientific “theory” is considered as nothing but preposterous in the scientific realm, he chose an audience that is not of the “science community,” not familiar with scientific terms, and that is therefore open to a good false conspiracy.

Hint: he’s not presenting research or papers to any journals, as all other researchers would strive to do. No. Instead, Kaufman came into the alternative movement at day 1 of the Covid-19 debacle, because we are an audience that would actually consider his lies as legitimate without proof. And it certainly wouldn’t be the first time!

From another lecture: “Viruses, as obligate parasites, must be grown in living cells. This is the biggest challenge of all. All the other organisms (e.g. bacterium) generally grow by taking up provided nutrients, most often chemicals. Viruses will also grow taking up nutrients, but if we give them chemical nutrients they will not grow in and of themselves. Again, viruses are by their nature obligate parasites. We need to supply them with a host, which means some form of living cell. So we need to maintain a living cell in the lab in order to maintain a virus in the lab. The virus is, in other words, BECOMES PART OF THE HOST…“

“Bacteriophages are placed upon a lawn of bacteria and form plaques (the plate or dish is prepared, the bacteria is added, and then the bacteriophages are added, entering into the bacteria and thriving within). Inversely, animal viruses may be grown in cell cultures, embryonated eggs, or in living animals (as examples), all of which act as hosts. This is why virus handling becomes much more critical than the handling of bacteria. In fact, they cannot be compared. They are completely different systems of research.“

“When searching for viral infection, it’s not the virus as a whole that is sought out, but certain proteins that otherwise would not be present in the host that originate from the virus. Thus tests (like Western Blot) are used to detect and identify specific antibodies, which shows evidence of the parasitic viral infection. More importantly, specific proteins that are associated only with the specific capsid or envelope of a virus, when discovered, are what show proof of the presence of the virus, BECAUSE THOSE PROTEINS ARE NOT OTHERWISE FOUND IN THE HOST, or in other words, never originate from eukaryotic (e.g., human) cells but is exactly what is expected to originate from the viral capsid or envelope of the virus.“

Link–> (12) Virology lecture 1 | Virus structure and classification – YouTube

In short, there is no debate here. Comparing bacterial research with virus research is a completely different functionality and a totally different criteria. And here we find the greatest chink in Kaufman’s rotting amour, that the proteins of a virus envelope do not exist in human (eukaryotic) cells. This completely destroys the idea that exosomes are somehow self-created viruses or that viruses don’t exist, for the presence of the virus is proven by those otherwise impossibly present viral proteins in the human body. Ouch! That’s got to hurt!

Now, we could stop here, leaving an unwarranted shred of legitimacy to Kaufman’s false dialectical. But, for the sake of further proofs and clarification, so there’s no doubt left over, let’s take a look at the history of Koch’s postulates to make sure this is a correct statement:

–=–

“Koch’s postulates (/ˈkɔːx/) are four criteria designed to establish a causative relationship between a microbe and a disease. The postulates were formulated by Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler in 1884, based on earlier concepts described by Jakob Henle, and refined and published by Koch in 1890. Koch applied the postulates to describe the etiology of cholera and tuberculosis (bacteria), but they have been controversially generalized to other diseases. These postulates were generated before modern concepts in microbial pathogenesis that cannot be examined using Koch’s postulates, including viruses (which are obligate cellular parasites) and asymptomatic carriers. They have largely been supplanted by other criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria for infectious disease causality in modern public health.” (–Wikipedia)

–=–

Well now… it appears that emperor Kaufman suddenly has no clothes.

It is at least incredibly disingenuous and at worst purposefully misleading to demand that Koch’s postulates be applied to virus research, for what now should be obvious reasons. Firstly, the first virus to be seen with the human eye did not occur until the microscope was invented and later improved to show microscopic viruses well after these postulates were published. Trust me when I say, Mr. Koch was long dead by then. Thus Kaufman’s claim that viral research into SARS-Cov-2 does not meet with Koch’s postulate is cleverly both true and false. True because those postulates simply don’t apply to viral research, and false because of the same reason. In other words, this whole argument, parroted and promoted by many fools that have not done any decent research into the subject, is a giant red herring – a well-rehearsed logical fallacy. It’s very clever, I’ll grant that much. But to put it into perspective, this would be like saying that the way NFL players play football does not meet the PGA’s rules of golf etiquette and dress code. They are two different methodologies for two very different games. To be clear: the rules of isolation of bacteria cannot be applied to the same game of isolating viruses.

–=–
Viral Lives Matter:
Isolation is Not Segregation
–=–

And that brings us full circle to this term of the medical and scientific arts, the word isolation. Again, there are certain, numeral instances in professional settings where the common dictionary term of words simply does not apply. In fact, some professional terms of art do not even exist in common speech. Yet Dr. Kaufman provides us with a whole argument against the existence of SARS-Cov-2 based on the common Oxford dictionary definition of the word isolation. His argument starts with this singular definition with complete disregard to any actual scientific terminology.

Therefore, Kaufman falsely and quite smugly appears to be correct. Again, this is a very clever slight of hand deceit, a legerdemain trickery.

Amazingly, Kaufman somehow attempts to twist the truth in his presentation into his own logical fallacy. This is to say that he quotes from the later modified postulates that actually allow for the existence of viruses, where he quotes Rivers from his 1937 update to Koch’s then almost 50 year old document (as Kaufman writes in the second and third quotes below):

“According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease.”

“…now it is possible to bring excellent evidence that an organism is the cause of a malady without the complete satisfaction of the [Koch’s] postulates.”

“…particularly those [diseases] caused by viruses, the blind adherence to Koch’s postulates may act as a hindrance instead of an aid.”

So here we have just that phenomenon – the so-called Dr. Kaufman has taken a strict stance in blind adherence to the original, non-applicable, bacterial postulates, convincing many others unread on the subject to do the same, which has certainly acted as a hindrance to learning about viruses. Doesn’t this sound a bit like religion, ignoring the new testament to promote the old or vice-versa, like faith-based ignorance of all that is not part of the particularly designed denominated faith (dialectic)? You must ask yourself whether the fool is he that adheres to such a theory as Koch’s postulates despite their invention before the age of technology to detect viruses, or he that challenges that theory of postulates after 50 years of technological improvement and knowledge. For here we are, now 85 years later than River’s contribution and improvement to that theory, and what do we find? Nothing more than a cult of misguided, uneducated beliefs in an incomplete, unusable theory, comparing apples and oranges as if they are the same thing.

In short, Koch’s postulates are not required to be met for viruses or viral infection, only for bacteriological ones. And this is a well-known fact in that institution of science, which explains Kaufman’s turning away from that institution to prey on we the non-science community. The argument is mute, and has been for almost a century. New evidence must alter old theories, or science is a dead art. There is no belief or consensus in properly executed science research. And Dr. Kaufman is anything but a scientist.

Finally, without being accused of character assassination, let us take a closer look at the good Doctor’s history in a clearer light. And for knowledge sake, let’s use the public record without inserting our own opinion. Understand this is not a character assassination, because that is not needed here. We need not attack the messenger when the message is so provably shown to be a pile of stinky smelly dung. But for those that hold to any supposed legitimacy of flattering title or syndicalist university credentials, we must understand the following as the final nail in Kaufman’s proverbial coffin.

Dr. Andrew R Kaufman has the following 2 specialties

NEUROLOGY

PSYCHIATRY

Dr. Andrew R Kaufman has the following 13 expertise

• Depression
• Depressive Disorder
• Manic Depressive Disorder
• Schizophrenia
• Clinical Depression
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
• Bipolar Disorder
• Mood Disorders
• Mental Illness
• Insomnia
• Personality Disorder
• Sleep Disorders
• Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) / Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

So he’s a licensed drug pusher. He pretends to treat pretended “mental” disease. No specialties or experience in virology or microbiology. He’s a psychiatrist, which for some insane reason carries the title of Medical Doctor. Actually I know the reason. It’s so these fake “doctors” can have the highest power granted by government, that of drug prescription, the very backbone of their industry. After all, it’s psychiatry that invents new disease on behalf of universities and drug companies in new drug “discovery.” For the Psychiatry industry writes the handbook of drugs every year, entitled the DSM-5.

Who publishes it? Why none other than the private non-governmental organization called the American Psychiatric Association. Read about that handbook here at their website: DSM-5 (psychiatry.org) “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) is the product of more than 10 years of effort by hundreds of international experts in all aspects of mental health. Their dedication and hard work have yielded an authoritative volume that defines and classifies mental disorders in order to improve diagnoses, treatment, and research.”

To be clear, my contempt for this industry of death and legalized torture and restraint, was documented in the two films below:

–=–

But let us not judge each individual merely by this sick and twisted history of psychiatric hell. Let’s instead read what his own peers say about Kaufman’s journey into Neverland:

–=–

“The Psychiatrist Who Calmly Denies Reality”

McGill University Office for Science and Society “Separating Sense from Nonsense”

24 Sep 2020 COVID-19 Pseudoscience

“Dr. Andrew Kaufman made the rounds in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic by claiming the virus did not exist. Now, he leads anti-maskers in public demonstrations and tells hundreds of thousands of YouTube users that everything they know about medicine is wrong.

It is alarming to find a popular medical doctor on the Internet who claims that appendicitis—a common inflammation of the appendix which can lead to sepsis and death—is no big deal. According to him, it’s simply constipation, which can be relieved by enema. He says it so calmly, though, that you may be inclined to believe him.

This doctor is Andrew Kaufman, based in Syracuse, New York. In the middle of a global health pandemic, he has become a prominent voice in the COVID denialism movement online. Many of his lengthy commentaries on YouTube have received hundreds of thousands of views. If you have heard that the coronavirus is not real, that scientists are actually detecting “exosomes,” you are familiar with Kaufman’s theory. His turn away from medicine seems to have been triggered in part by reading the book A Mind of Your Own by Kelly Brogan, a psychiatrist turned virus denier and Goop contributor. Kaufman regularly takes to YouTube to answer specific medical questions from viewers and provides them with “information” that runs counter to basic knowledge of the human body, endorsing bone broths and detox protocols for a variety of ailments. He is not a naturopath; he is a psychiatrist with an active medical license in his state.

Illuminating fringe claims can poison the public discourse, but Kaufman is popular enough that addressing his main theory is necessary. And his even-tempered warnings about a “globalist agenda” and a “manufactured crisis” that has led to “coercion” feed the playbook of COVID-19 conspiracy theorists.

The myth that the virus isn’t there

Sounding composed and knowledgeable, Kaufman repeatedly tells his viewers that viruses are not a cause of human diseases. Through watching hours and hours of video, I have seen him deny the existence of the viruses behind the common cold, polio, HIV-AIDS, viral hepatitis, chickenpox, COVID-19, and measles. One of his favourite examples for why his war against germ theory is justified is the case of Stefan Lanka, which he sells to his audience as “the Supreme Court of Germany actually ruled that there is no measles virus that’s been proved to exist” (from his interview with London Real, time code 1:04:00). The truth is that Lanka issued a challenge: he wanted a single scientific paper that, on its own, proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the virus existed. When a doctor named David Bardens produced six papers that together met the burden of proof, Lanka refused to pay and the Court recognized that Lanka was free to set the rules as he saw fit because this was an award and he could give it to whomever. The measles virus is very real: Lanka’s public challenge was, in my opinion, a no-win scenario to give credence to his virus denialism.

Dr. Andrew Kaufman rose to fame in the early days of the pandemic by claiming that what scientists were actually seeing with their electron microscopes was not a new coronavirus but rather exosomes. This story is quite interesting as it reveals a common tactic Kaufman uses. In building a bridge between an observation and a conclusion he likes, he will often use valid science to lay down a number of planks. When that bridge is almost complete, he runs out of planks and takes a leap of faith, but that leap may only be noticeable by an expert. Going back to exosomes, most of what Kaufman says is true. Our body is made of cells, and you can imagine a cell like a soap bubble. An exosome is a tiny bubble that buds off from that soap bubble and starts floating around, maybe eventually fusing with another soap bubble.

These exosomes can carry payloads, like genetic material, and act as transporters inside our body, and they do look an awful lot like many viruses. In fact, sometimes a virus will infect a cell and an exosome containing the virus’ genetic material will bud off and go on to infect another cell, just like a viral particle would! But here we reach the end of our bridge. Two scientific experts discussed this issue in a YouTube video and concluded that “clearly, there are similarities between exosomes and the coronavirus but they are absolutely different in many aspects.” Kaufman takes a leap and claims the virus does not exist. It’s all exosomes.

In fact, Kaufman loves to mention that doctors who claim to have found an infectious virus have never been able to fulfill Koch’s hallowed postulates. A brief history lesson is warranted. Microbiologist Robert Koch stated during the Victorian era (just before we even really knew what DNA and viruses were) that to prove that a microbe caused disease, you needed to isolate it from living things with the disease and not find it in living things without the disease. And if you took it from a living thing that had it and gave it to a living thing that did not, it should produce disease and you should be able to then isolate this microbe within it. So if scientists have not done this with a particular virus, it gives license to people like Kaufman to claim that we just don’t know.

The problem is that Koch himself realized that requiring his postulates to be fulfilled each and every time was mistaken. He noticed people who were carriers of typhoid fever and of cholera who did not have symptoms. They had the infectious agent but not the disease. Was it proof these microbes did not after all cause the disease? No. Koch’s postulates are historically interesting, but they have essentially been supplanted by guidelines based on the detection of DNA or RNA from the microbe itself.

For those who want to delve deeper into “Where Kaufman thinks the coronavirus’ genetic code comes from“, click here

From MD to ND

Dr. Andrew Kaufman is, in my opinion, a naturopath now. He charges USD 750 for a natural health consultation (and $1,750 for the premium package). He has stated that technological advances in medicine are only superior to natural methods “if your bone is sticking out of your skin”; that it’s wrong to be synthesizing drugs; and that we should simply rely on natural molecules whose safety, he claims, is known. And like naturopaths, Kaufman sees toxins everywhere. He thinks we get them from clothes, shampoo and the food supply. Urinary tract infections, he believes, can be caused by toxins in the rectum that “translocate” to the urinary system. So naturally, he recommends “cleansings” to many people writing in with questions. These mysterious toxins and our rituals to purify ourselves from them remind me of the demons and exorcisms of old, and if you think that’s a stretch, Kaufman, a psychiatrist who has done work in the criminal justice system in the past, thinks “demon possession may actually be a factor in some mental illness” like schizophrenia. Many of the comments on his live streams display a strong religious fervour—“Yes demons are for real” and “Just walk with Christ and you are save [sic] even if they kill you!”—so much so that you would think you were watching the world’s most unflappable preacher.

But Kaufman is not content to embrace naturopathy and deny the existence of germs: he has to imply that this pandemic just doesn’t add up. He has called lockdowns a form of “house arrest” and “martial law”, taking away people’s right to assemble and right to religion. He has claimed (erroneously) that vaccines are “syringes full of poison” and that masks simultaneously have pores too big to block the “virus” (whatever that means for him) but small enough to significantly reduce your oxygen supply, which makes no scientific sense. He rhetorically asks the question, “Who wears masks?”, but does not answer it with “doctors, dentists, nurses.” “People who are hiding something,” he says, “people who are being dishonest, people who are thieves.” He lost his remaining part-time doctor job recently for refusing to wear a mask and has since been leading a group of unmasked people into local businesses to make a stand.

He worries this “manufactured crisis” has a goal, which is to make people reliant on government handouts, a common conspiracist belief of the “freedom” reactionaries. To put icing on this martyrdom cake, he has tied Bill Gates to the eugenics movement and was featured on London Real, a video channel making millions of dollars promoting self-help and conspiracy theories, thanks to former guest David Icke, who believes reptilian alien-human hybrids secretly run the world. Kaufman thought this interview was such a treat, he wore a suit and tie for it.

COVID denialism, belief in detox regimens, libertarian calls to protect individual freedoms, all of these tropes are being stitched together into a Frankenstein’s monster by unscientific people like Dr. Andrew Kaufman. Where might it end? Sounding calm, collected, and ominous, Kaufman promises that “if we get to [the point where soldiers are holding you down to vaccinate you], I promise that I will give out a ‘recipe’ that can mitigate things for people that are held down by force and vaccinated.”

This Andy Kaufman is no joke.

Take-home message:

– Dr. Andrew Kaufman, a psychiatrist essentially turned naturopath, has become very popular on YouTube for denying the existence of the coronavirus.
– He claims the coronavirus is instead an exosome, a natural transport vehicle made by our cells, and while exosomes do have some similarities to viruses, there is undeniable evidence that the coronavirus exists.
– Dr. Kaufman is part of a conspiracy movement that believes the pandemic is being manufactured to take away people’s rights, and his calm and confident demeanor can appear very convincing even when he makes outrageous claims like that appendicitis is simply constipation.”

–=–

Now, you may be reading this and saying to yourself, well gee, much of what Dr. Andy says turns out to be true! And that’s the point. This is a time-tested recipe for the successful false dialectic, 70-90% truth mixed with 10-30% lies, depending on the scope of the psychological operation and the state of common knowledge in the people one must fool. And while this article is written in a way to disparage even myself, using fallacious and reprehensible terms like conspiracy theorist to excuse the author’s own non-research and ignorance into anything not accepted by the syndicalist medical and university industry, the relative points made about Kaufman are certainly fair. And, as hard as it is to admit, this ostracized “doctor” has ironically been cancelled from the medical industry, which is the very reason which he now preys on the alternative movement, knowing we are not professionals and mostly not educated in these topics. This false dialectic simply will not work on educated people that research and verify before they allow themselves to believe. So this is as much a lesson about ourselves as it is about those that prey on our collective ignorance. We are good people that want to believe in good things, and that makes us vulnerable to bad people selling the appearance and façade of good by wolves in sheep’s clothing.

–=–
The Terrain And The Germ:
Two Great Tastes That Taste Great Together
–=–

In doing a general search for the terms terrain theory vs. germ theory, the top of the search engine’s response came up to read “germ theory denialism.”

While this article today is not about terrain theory or my personal opinion on it, I will simply state here that these two “theories” need not be considered in any way antagonistic or as polar opposite to one another – unless your goal is to create cognitive dissonance in a false dialectical. In other words, as we’ve discussed above about what the germ line is and what the nature of all germs (i.e. germination) is, there is nothing anywhere that says that a healthy immune system and a generally healthy and well-nourished body is somehow not a contributor to a state of good health. To put it another way, nobody that speaks about germs in a professional, scientific way would in the same sentence refer to the terrain (body) as irrelevant to the purpose and intent of a germ. In other words, it should be obvious that at their core, these theories are both correct, and provably so, and therefore not opposed to each other. In fact, they are two different subjects that really have no business being placed in opposition to each other unless the ability of the germ to be viral is questioned in a healthy or unhealthy environment. No germ expert would promote the notion that a diseased body (terrain) would effect the ability of the germ to fulfill its parasitic goal. Again, it’s a non sequitur.

It’s ok, folks, you can believe in both theories, because both theories have merit. But profiteers like Kaufman, including both sides of the isle of pharmaceutical drug (chemicals) and “natural” supplement product sellers, make their profits from the artificial controversy they promote, not from the actual effect of their products. Those that believe in one theory believe the practitioners that support and supplement or treat for that theory, and vice-versa. It’s time to declare peace, to return to actual science in method, and to call bullshit on most of the “mainstream” and “alternative” crap being peddled out there. For it is the controversy itself that keeps the disinformation agents and profiteers in business and in the news. Remember, the cancelation of one thing requires the preservation of it to promote it’s opposite. No source, no opposition. You may research both theories yourself, of course, for this post has gone on long enough. Just remember that like Mr. Koch and Mr. Pasteur did over 100 years ago, we must always keep neutrality and scientific observation at the top of and binding over our ill-formed opinions and theories, remembering that all theories are temporary and meant to be improved upon or outright disproven. That’s the backbone of legitimacy in any art or science venture.

As for this Psych Doctor turned conman-naturopath, I can only request that anyone that has interviewed or supported this quack and his absolutely disprovable theories must immediately, officially retract their support and correct the record with their listenership. Do not be afraid to have a clear conscious. Do not pretend that truth has two sides and that everyone deserves to be heard. Do not do what the mainstream does in its constant controlled opposition and competing stories, then disclaiming to be fair and balanced and that the audience is smart enough to decide what is true. That’s completely evil, irresponsible, and just bad journalism. That is a lack of integrity and outright laziness. If not, then stop calling yourself and your show as part of the “truth” movement and start calling it what it really is – ENTERTAINMENT. For this is the worst kind of lie, the worse kind of lack of self-responsibility and self-government, making you part of the problem, not the solution.

One final note on Kaufman…

As I have the good fortune to speak privately with many prominent hosts and authors in the alternative sphere, those that I consider legitimate have one thing in common, and that is that we’ve all been “handled” by some of the same people. I will keep these names private on both ends for the purposes of this post, but it is important to know that DR. Kaufman was seemingly invented overnight at the same time Judy Mikovits arrived on the scene (see Plandemic movie and the 100’s of hit pieces all over the mainstream news about her.) Yet there is virtually nothing about this provocateur’s psychiatrist in comparison. Also, there are a few of us that indeed have retracted any support of this quack, as well as full retractions of his supposed, unverifiable credentials. As an example of this provocateurs’ actions and intention, we see in this interview that Kaufman was literally kicked off the show for attempting to character assassinate Dr. Judy Mikovits (an actual PhD virologist), even going so far as to deny the importance of her credentials, while apparently falsely claiming his own. Watch as the agent provocateur’ first sets up the scene that viruses don’t exist knowing that a virologist is coming on, then saying “does anyone know what she’s saying” while goading on the lack of most audience and panel members ability to understand the terms of science Dr. Mikovits uses. Then watch as she attempts to explain how it all works with the actual meaning of specific “Virus isolation,” even agreeing with Kaufman in his very layman assessment, and then watch as he attacks his target with unfortunate, fallacious, and downright asinine failure. Note that he uses the common definition of “isolation” instead of the scientific definition, which she tries to explain the difference between, that a parasite and its host are the virus. Listen also to the host that falls for the logical fallacy Kaufman is proposing, believing the virus is not “isolated” according to the common meaning, which is TRUE. He doesn’t know the difference between the scientific terms of art cause and causative. Then Kaufman is kicked off the show for his extremely unprofessional behavior, so that a real doctor (PhD) with actual experience in gain of function research can explain what’s actually happening with the Covid vaccine.

Link–> Special Event Roundtable with Dr. Andrew Kaufman vs. Dr. Judy Mikovits (bitchute.com)

Finally, there’s this comment:

Mark McClain – Who is Dr. Andrew Kaufman, the supposed accredited MIT scientist behind COVID-19 denialist theories? Are his arguments valid?

I have spent some time trying to figure out who Dr. Andrew Kaufman is. According to London Real tv, who have posted Kaufman’s one YouTube video, say he studied at Duke, MIT and Medical University of South Carolina. Matching those qualifications to Dr. Andrew Kaufman and a forensic psychiatrist from New York is the result. I also found a disciplinary action from the state of Ohio in 2012 for Dr. Andrew Kaufman who studied at University of South Carolina and Duke. Here is the action of the Ohio Disciplinary Board: Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D. Dr. Kaufman participated in a research project that offered participants a $25 gift code to Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more as an incentive. After the study concluded Dr. Kaufman used nearly all the remaining gift codes, which had been purchased with unrestricted grant money from a pharmaceutical company, to purchase personal items. Dr. Kaufman later took steps to cancel the order and return the merchandise. However, as a result of his actions, Dr. Kaufman was suspended from the residency program and notified that his status would be listed as nonprogram completion, which caused his resident training license to become inactive. Duke University and Dr. Kaufman have since executed an agreement providing for a six-month remediation program beginning on January 1, 2009 that will enable Dr. Kaufman to complete his residency program.

Before the North Carolina Medical Board In re: Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D. Consent Order. 2008-11-26: http://www.circare.org/pd/kaufman_20081126.pdf

I have no idea what expertise this guy would possibly have about the coronavirus. His specialty is psychiatry of the criminal mind. His one video is repeated by conspiracy theorists, but I could not find anything of relevant research. He has a YouTube video. Conspiracy theorists like it. Not the type of source I would deem reliable.

Coupon fraud case link here: Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D. Before the North Carolina Medical Board In re: Andrew Russell Kaufman, M.D. Consent Order. 2008-11-26 (circare.org)

–=–
To Kill The Mockingbirds
–=–

In conclusion, I don’t really have much to say. I have provided you with what I feel is sufficient evidence and research to clear up this false debate. I must remind people that he who speaks some truth should not be given the benefit of the doubt that all his speech is as well the truth. This nonsensical shrink must not be allowed to taint the minds of the few of us that can still think for ourselves, for we are being bombarded with disinfo and false dialectics from every angle.

I hope this has helped in your own understanding and dissemination of all this research and to help you to see the enemies among us, acting as if they are one of us to take advantage of and mislead us.

Finally, I’m happy to say that my next documentary, part 2 of Wagging the Dog, the Story Behind the Story of Covid-19, will be coming out soon. It will consist almost entirely of more panel discussions behind the closed doors of the NIH speaking about all the viruses they have mutated through gain of function in the lab and allowed to escape. Thus, one of the reasons I have written this article today is that I cannot very well present such primary evidence as the very scientists that mutate viruses while funded by the NIH if my audience have any doubt that viruses even exist, my greatest reason for feeling the need to present this research to you today.

Be well, and seek only the Truth.

.

–Clint > richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Wednesday, April 14th, 2021