Common sense is essential in these times. Self awareness is essential. Memory is survival. Do multifactoral research from many sources always holding an open mind. Inform yourself, come to your own conclusions and then live them to test their validity for yourself. Be self sovereign and finally, in this writer's opinion, never inject anything into the body.
I attended the COVID-19 Myths series webinars #1-3 and the cost was $20 per episode, not $180 as you have written. Episode 4 is still available for purchase and one can confirm on the COVID-19 myths website which you have yourself referenced in this article that the cost is $20.
Cowan and Kaufman have gone the route of using studies, lab procedure and common logic as their focal point. From the studies I have read, they make good points. Upon reading your Commentary on Isolation, your view and that of Cowan and Kaufman have many points of similarity, perhaps most importantly that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. Tom and Andy have said they will stop asking the questions about viruses if they are given evidence that viruses exist, but so far they haven't found it. I find your explanation quite logical, but is there evidence for it that the virus skeptics would accept? It seems you find they are too rigid in their criterion.
While I acknowledge your association with Icke point to some degree, I don't find that criticizing others for charging $ for their work is valid. There are costs to produce presentations and you are charging for it as well. They have a bigger audience and make more $, so that makes their work suspect? If they accepted proof of viruses, that wouldn't change their tune that much, they would just acknowledge they exist, but they would move on to the question of transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.
Let's stay on point and discuss the science and logic or lack thereof.
Since you edited your comment, I will address your new comment on charging for work.
I charge for my written work, and I have that right just as they do. However, I am not actively engaged in funneling people into falsehoods. Does Jones have a right to fearmonger his audience and get them to buy his products? Certainly, but I do not agree with it, and I also have a right to voice that opinion. Their associations with known disinformation disseminators are what makes their work suspect.
Fair enough. Their associations may not be appealing, but I have watched several videos by both Tom and Andy, and never saw any mention of Alex Jones or David Icke. Cowan and Kaufman both have numerous videos freely available, so one can hear what they have to say without spending anything but one's time. I find Alex Jones too intense for my liking.
'TERRAIN: The Film' has Icke introducing the film. It is also hosted on Ikonic.com, which is Icke's media outlet. That film is primarily made by Kaufman alongside Cowan. On Jones's side, Icke also works with Jones quite often. Covid-19-myths, also presented by Kaufman alongside Cowan, is an Alex Jones website. And so on.
I believe this of interest and worth knowing. It establishes an overarching cohesive narrative.
While it is true Kaufman and Cowan have quoted studies, they have done so inaccurately to try to prove their point. They will likely not accept any evidence, or sound biological reasons for why viruses must exist.
I have illustrated in my recent journal, for example, that Kaufman omitted very important parts of a study claiming to show the isolation and existence of SARS-CoV-2. He claimed isolation procedures were omitted, and that only Vero cells were used in the study. In actuality, the study showed the use of human cell lines and not merely Vero cells, as claimed by Kaufman. He also omitted the methods section which clearly tells of the isolation procedure. So, in fact, there is indeed mention in the study that describes isolation.
Pertaining to isolation, the study states the following:
"In this article, we describe isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from a patient who had coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the United States and described its genomic sequence and replication characteristics. We have made the virus isolate available to the public health community by depositing it into 2 virus reagent repositories."
"For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 µL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 µL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/ mL. We added 100 µL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols.
It was initially thought by many that SARS-CoV-2 was a nonexistent virus altogether, but the most logical conclusion utilizing available evidence now shows that it exists as a lab-created construct (like other manmade constructs); existing only as a manmade protein, and not a naturally occurring viral protein. This allows researchers to study the makeup of the viral protein, its characteristics, and makeup. PCR testing used to identify the virus uses a GenBank sequence.
The sample and the sequence can be made to match. The original sample, as provided to researchers by labs likely in US and/or Chinese labs, can be readily examined as if it were a naturally occurring virus. In hindsight, it would make little difference and researchers would not be aware.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the SARS-CoV-1 virus sequence as its template. This is referenced by a study in the journal:
"Nevertheless these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 (Hereafter named SARS-CoV-1) as both are beta coronaviruses. The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-1 as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper."
Thanks for the detailed reply. I will have to digest this first and contact them to see their response and/or objections. I suspect they would be ok with your explanation, as it does not alter their view on contagion. I thought Kaufman had stated that exosomes were indistinguishable from viruses.
Cowan posted on his blog an article titled: Study Shows "Virus" Is Identical to Normal Cell "Structures"
So the point of creating a lab version is to prove it exists and then assuming that no one will bother to try and 'isolate' it from a patient? How could they isolate it from the first patient if it is lab created? That is one of their main points - the whole intact viral SARS-CoV-2 particle with the genome as described has not been sourced from a human.
No, the PCR test is using a sequence from a naturally occurring coronavirus to identify genetic information in the body. The PCR test is amplified above 30 cycles, which can cause many false positives when testing. They are most surely using rates over 30 cycles, as is alluded to in CDC manuals.
The lab construct known as SARS-CoV-2 supplements this and allows 'verification' of the virus by researchers. It is a proxy virus, you may call it.
PCR testing is used to confirm positivity. Thus, if they take a sample, and the sequence of that sample matches the coronavirus sequence, it will be labeled as SARS-CoV-2, when in actuality, it is a normally occurring coronavirus or flu virus. Without confirmation of a circulating new virus, there is no contagion threat. Therefore, the illusion must be maintained.
Common sense is essential in these times. Self awareness is essential. Memory is survival. Do multifactoral research from many sources always holding an open mind. Inform yourself, come to your own conclusions and then live them to test their validity for yourself. Be self sovereign and finally, in this writer's opinion, never inject anything into the body.
I attended the COVID-19 Myths series webinars #1-3 and the cost was $20 per episode, not $180 as you have written. Episode 4 is still available for purchase and one can confirm on the COVID-19 myths website which you have yourself referenced in this article that the cost is $20.
Yes, I am aware. Please re-read my article, It was an initial typo that was corrected.
Cowan and Kaufman have gone the route of using studies, lab procedure and common logic as their focal point. From the studies I have read, they make good points. Upon reading your Commentary on Isolation, your view and that of Cowan and Kaufman have many points of similarity, perhaps most importantly that SARS-CoV-2 does not exist. Tom and Andy have said they will stop asking the questions about viruses if they are given evidence that viruses exist, but so far they haven't found it. I find your explanation quite logical, but is there evidence for it that the virus skeptics would accept? It seems you find they are too rigid in their criterion.
While I acknowledge your association with Icke point to some degree, I don't find that criticizing others for charging $ for their work is valid. There are costs to produce presentations and you are charging for it as well. They have a bigger audience and make more $, so that makes their work suspect? If they accepted proof of viruses, that wouldn't change their tune that much, they would just acknowledge they exist, but they would move on to the question of transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.
Let's stay on point and discuss the science and logic or lack thereof.
Since you edited your comment, I will address your new comment on charging for work.
I charge for my written work, and I have that right just as they do. However, I am not actively engaged in funneling people into falsehoods. Does Jones have a right to fearmonger his audience and get them to buy his products? Certainly, but I do not agree with it, and I also have a right to voice that opinion. Their associations with known disinformation disseminators are what makes their work suspect.
Fair enough. Their associations may not be appealing, but I have watched several videos by both Tom and Andy, and never saw any mention of Alex Jones or David Icke. Cowan and Kaufman both have numerous videos freely available, so one can hear what they have to say without spending anything but one's time. I find Alex Jones too intense for my liking.
'TERRAIN: The Film' has Icke introducing the film. It is also hosted on Ikonic.com, which is Icke's media outlet. That film is primarily made by Kaufman alongside Cowan. On Jones's side, Icke also works with Jones quite often. Covid-19-myths, also presented by Kaufman alongside Cowan, is an Alex Jones website. And so on.
I believe this of interest and worth knowing. It establishes an overarching cohesive narrative.
While it is true Kaufman and Cowan have quoted studies, they have done so inaccurately to try to prove their point. They will likely not accept any evidence, or sound biological reasons for why viruses must exist.
I have illustrated in my recent journal, for example, that Kaufman omitted very important parts of a study claiming to show the isolation and existence of SARS-CoV-2. He claimed isolation procedures were omitted, and that only Vero cells were used in the study. In actuality, the study showed the use of human cell lines and not merely Vero cells, as claimed by Kaufman. He also omitted the methods section which clearly tells of the isolation procedure. So, in fact, there is indeed mention in the study that describes isolation.
Pertaining to isolation, the study states the following:
"In this article, we describe isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from a patient who had coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in the United States and described its genomic sequence and replication characteristics. We have made the virus isolate available to the public health community by depositing it into 2 virus reagent repositories."
"For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 µL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 µL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/ mL. We added 100 µL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/pdfs/20-0516.pdf - p.2 (1267)
It was initially thought by many that SARS-CoV-2 was a nonexistent virus altogether, but the most logical conclusion utilizing available evidence now shows that it exists as a lab-created construct (like other manmade constructs); existing only as a manmade protein, and not a naturally occurring viral protein. This allows researchers to study the makeup of the viral protein, its characteristics, and makeup. PCR testing used to identify the virus uses a GenBank sequence.
The sample and the sequence can be made to match. The original sample, as provided to researchers by labs likely in US and/or Chinese labs, can be readily examined as if it were a naturally occurring virus. In hindsight, it would make little difference and researchers would not be aware.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus uses the SARS-CoV-1 virus sequence as its template. This is referenced by a study in the journal:
"Nevertheless these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 (Hereafter named SARS-CoV-1) as both are beta coronaviruses. The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV-1 as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper."
Section 'Biomolecular validations'.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346483715_External_peer_review_of_the_RTPCR_test_to_detect_SARS-CoV-2_reveals_10_major_scientific_flaws_at_the_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results
Thanks for the detailed reply. I will have to digest this first and contact them to see their response and/or objections. I suspect they would be ok with your explanation, as it does not alter their view on contagion. I thought Kaufman had stated that exosomes were indistinguishable from viruses.
Cowan posted on his blog an article titled: Study Shows "Virus" Is Identical to Normal Cell "Structures"
https://drtomcowan.com/blogs/blog/the-smoking-gun so I don't think he would
be at odds with your view.
So the point of creating a lab version is to prove it exists and then assuming that no one will bother to try and 'isolate' it from a patient? How could they isolate it from the first patient if it is lab created? That is one of their main points - the whole intact viral SARS-CoV-2 particle with the genome as described has not been sourced from a human.
No, the PCR test is using a sequence from a naturally occurring coronavirus to identify genetic information in the body. The PCR test is amplified above 30 cycles, which can cause many false positives when testing. They are most surely using rates over 30 cycles, as is alluded to in CDC manuals.
The lab construct known as SARS-CoV-2 supplements this and allows 'verification' of the virus by researchers. It is a proxy virus, you may call it.
PCR testing is used to confirm positivity. Thus, if they take a sample, and the sequence of that sample matches the coronavirus sequence, it will be labeled as SARS-CoV-2, when in actuality, it is a normally occurring coronavirus or flu virus. Without confirmation of a circulating new virus, there is no contagion threat. Therefore, the illusion must be maintained.