|vaticancatholic.com - English Channel|
This MUST-SEE video is a striking vindication of what we stated about ‘Covid’ before perhaps any other organization. Lab scientist and noted natural health proponent Mike Adams has (to his credit) changed his position on ‘Covid’. He originally believed it was a real disease based on a real virus but now, after trying to order certified materials for it, he realizes that it’s a hoax and that the ‘virus’ doesn’t exist and has never been isolated. Adams interviews two doctors who cover the truth about this massive ‘Covid’ hoax. People need to understand these facts. Those who tell you that ‘Covid’ exists or that people ‘have it’ are spreading propaganda and contradicting a true scientific analysis.
[Mike Adams:] I’ve got to tell you, I’m super thrilled to have these two guests on because these two brilliant men have changed my thinking about so many things. And right up front, I’ll tell you who they are and I’ve got to offer them both an apology because I thought they were wrong for quite a while. Now I found out – they’re right and it’s going to blow your mind, as you discover that for yourself. It’s Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman and as I said, they’re going to join me here in just a second. I thought they were wrong because they were saying – you know, you’ve heard this – that the Covid 19 virus has never been isolated from a symptomatic person. Isolated, shown then to infect another person and reproduce the symptoms of the original diagnosis of the original source. And when I first heard that – you know, as a lab scientist myself – I thought: surely they must be wrong! Surely, there must be Certified Reference Materials of this, like a dried powder of SARS Co-V-2 virus that I can order as a lab owner. That I can order and get a Certified Reference Material and I can conduct studies on it. So I tried to order Certified Reference Materials and this is when the awakening began for me. And I came to discover that so much of the field of virology is a mishmash of crazy woo-goo and they’re selling basically snot stew samples to people and calling them ‘isolates’. And I had this huge awakening. So I had to get these two guys on to explain what’s going on here and why Covid hasn’t been quote “isolated” and what that actually means. So, Dr. Thomas Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman, thank you for joining me today.
[Dr. Thomas Cowan:] Thanks, Mike.
[Dr. Andrew Kaufman:] Great to be here.
[Adams:] It’s great to have both of you on. I’ve been watching so many of your videos over the last few weeks and getting an incredible education. But let’s start at the beginning here and if I could pose this question to Dr. Kaufman. And oh, by the way, we’ll give out your websites on the screen for people to check out your work. It’s AndrewKaufmanMD.com and DrTomCowan.com. But, Dr. Kaufman, could you explain to people – just for starters – what do you mean when you say that we don’t have an isolated SARS-Co-2, a novel coronavirus that has been isolated and proven to cause this so-called disease. What does that mean?
[Dr. Andrew Kaufman:] Well, essentially, Mike we have a situation here. If we’re going to, you know, demonstrate that we’ve discovered a new organism – as they would say that a virus would be – then we have to show that we can find that alleged organism in nature. And, you know, so that we can study it. We can take a specimen of it and look at it in a laboratory. You know, like you do on a daily basis and then we can dissect it and see what it’s made of and take out the genetic material – and sequence that, if there is any.
And I just assumed that that would be how they discover viruses. But what has happened is that, since the 1950’s, they have this procedure that they call “isolation” – but it’s actually a complete inversion of the meaning of that word! And what they do is, they have the possible or the putative source of an alleged virus (or a possible virus) in nature, that they might have a theory is causing a disease. But they can’t actually find it!
So, what they do is, they take the diseased tissue from whatever organism and they mix it in a foreign cell culture, often using the cells of monkeys. But they do some further things to make this cell culture not grow well. They’re not nice to it. They add poisonous chemicals. And they remove critical nutrients. And create what I call a starvation diet. And then – when they show that there’s damage to the cells in the culture – they say that that’s evidence of a virus!
And then they show electron microscope pictures of particles. But as we’ve seen, even the scientists in that field knew about this problem for a long time: that these particles they see are just what happens when cells break down in the process of dying. And they can’t be distinguished from each other in any way, based on appearance because they’ve never been actually shown to exist separately in nature. And they’ve never been, you know, purified in any form that can be used for further study – like as a reference material that you’ve mentioned. You know, they do have what they might call ‘reference material’ available. But what it is, is they just take the fluid from the cell culture and filter it and put it in a vial. And interestingly – and I think this is actually the purpose of why they use this experiment. That’s the same exact procedure to manufacture a vaccine because that very same fluid from that cell culture is essentially the vaccine material – minus the adjuvants.
[Adams:] But, importantly, what’s in that vial is not purified. It’s not limited to just whatever genetic sequence strain that they claim is in there. You know, when I buy a standard for my lab. Let’s say glyphosate herbicide – it’s only glyphosate in water. Right?
[Adams:] It’s just glyphosate molecules in water. There’s nothing else in it. You know, very very high purity and it even gives me a concentration. You know, it tells me how many micrograms per milliliter of glyphosate is in there. So I can do serial dilutions. And I can make standards. And I can teach the instrument what it’s looking at. What I’ve seen with these virology samples is that not only are there no concentrations listed. No masses given of what’s in there. But then the disclaimers say: “Oh, and probably most of the genetic material in the vial is human cells and bovine cells.” So I’m thinking: well, how is this an ‘isolate’?
[Kaufman:] It is really laughable when you look at it in scientific terms because, as you know, you can take that glyphosate standard and run an HPLC on it and see a pristine, you know, symmetric peak.
[Kaufman:] Whereas if you took this sample that we’re talking about from a cell culture and looked at it under the microscope, you would see a mixture of particles. And if you ran it on a gel electrophoresis you’d see a mixture of proteins. And you’d see a mixture of genetic molecules. Right? DNA and RNA. So it would not be one thing. It’s a mixture of things, and that, of course, defies the meaning of the word ‘isolation’ or ‘isolate’.
[Adams:] Right, and just to mention electrophoresis. Just to explain this to the reader. So that separates these particle masses by their mass-to-charge ratios, basically. Right, so that spreads out on a gel – physically spreads out particles essentially based on their mass. Is that correct?
[Kaufman:] Absolutely. Yes. Yeah – it’s a way to demonstrate what’s in a sample in terms of a certain type of biomolecule. Like proteins. Or RNA. Or DNA – can all be separated. So, that if you have, for example, different genes represented, they would be separated and show up as separate pieces of RNA material or if you had a mixture of proteins, the same thing.
[Adams:] So, thank you for that explanation. You’re very clear about how you’re explaining things. I want to ask you about Koch’s Postulates here next. But next question is to Dr. Cowan. So, what really shocked me about all of this is that once we understand that they don’t have an isolated virus for covid, it also turns out they can’t prove that they have isolated viruses that are proven to cause polio or measles or other things. Can you give us your thoughts on the field of virology and this entire postulate that these viruses are causing these conditions alone?
[Cowan:] Yeah, Mike, and I also just want to point out that your example of glyphosate is appropriate. Because glyphosate is smaller than a virus!
[Adams:] It is.
[Cowan:] So, it isn’t a technical problem to have pure glyphosate or pure something smaller than a virus. It’s common laboratory stuff. So that’s not the problem. The way I would answer your question is, you know, this question I keep asking people: How do you know there’s a virus and it causes disease? And most people, in response to that – including, unfortunately, a lot of medical doctors say – “Well, a lot of people in a certain place got sick so it must be a virus. (Or) A lot of people got sick and it spread to the next place and that means it’s a virus.” Or “My Aunt Bessie went to church and she got sick so that means it’s a virus.”
The reality is, those are epidemiological observations – none of which prove any causation. That’s not the role. And besides, if you think because a lot of people get sick in the same place, that proves it’s a virus – you must think Hiroshima was a virus! And if it spreads, then you must think Chernobyl was a virus. And the reality is, for hundreds of years they thought, you know, one sailor got sick after another. Their teeth fell out. They went into heart failure and died. That must be a contagion. Turns out it was scurvy, and somebody ate a lime and the whole thing went away.
[Cowan:] So, we have a lost history of being wrong about this. The next thing is – and here I’m going to say something that I think will hopefully shock your listeners who haven’t heard this. Because it shocked me! But if you say: Okay, the next step is you take a sick person with measles, AIDS, chicken pox, covid (whatever that is). Any so-called viral disease. And you ask the question: Is it possible to find a uniform, morphologically identical particle from any bodily fluid from that sick person? The answer is – if you look in the medical literature – there is not one case that that’s true.
Now, let me just tell you the people who agree with what I just said. Number 1: 95 (as of yesterday) health institutions have been asked: “Can you show me a study where a SARS-COV 2 (that’s the virus) has been found in any bodily fluid of anybody with Covid?” In writing they say: “No.”
Then there’s like the Pasteur Institute, the Robert Koch Institute, the CDC – all have said, “No.”
All the virologists who write papers saying “Isolation of SARS-COV-2” - If you ask them in writing, they say: “No.”
And here’s another thing. Andy and I had the opportunity to present what we’re talking about today to a group of lawyers and activists and doctors and they invited a guy who was introduced to us as a laboratory pathologist and expert in laboratory virology in Wuhan, Chinese CDC for 20 years, and then a Yale pathologist for 20 years. And we asked him: “Is it possible to see an isolated, an example of SARS-COV-2 from any person with Covid?” And he said, “No.” And we said, “Why?” And he said, “Because there’s not enough to see.” And of course that begs the question.
[Adams:] There’s not enough to see?
[Cowan:] If there’s not enough virus to see in an electron microscope, on what theory is it going to kill us all? But – hang on.
[Adams:] Trust me, it’s invisible!
[Cowan:] Andy had the presence of mind to say: “What about if you took ten people and mixed them together – their bronchial fluid? Would there then be enough virus to see?” And he said, “No.”
And Andy asked him, what about 100 people? And he said: “No.” Andy asked him “what about 1,000 people?” And he said, “there’s not enough to see.”
And then we asked him, “what about 10,000 people?” You mix all their fluid together. Would there be enough to see? And he said: “No.” And then he wouldn’t answer anymore.
And so the reality is, everybody who knows anything about virology agrees that you cannot find this uniform, identical, morphologically identical particle in the bodily fluid of any sick person. Not with chicken pox. Not measles. Not mumps. Not the flu. Not HIV. Not covid.
So the question is: why did they write 10,000 papers or so claiming isolation? And that is exactly what Andy just described. They take fluid. They mix it with bovine fetal serum and calf serum; monkey stuff. They spread it on virile cells usually (or other types of cells). They poison it, they starve it, it breaks down and they call that ‘isolation’. Even though we now have two separate experiments that say – Because the original experiment that did this (by a guy named Enders), he actually did a control. And he did the whole tissue culture with nothing from anybody with measles. Right? And he said in quote: “The result was indistinguishable.” And when I read that I thought: Wait a minute! You just showed that the whole breakdown of the cell - which is what you’re calling the virus – happens even if you don’t add anything from anybody with measles.
[Adams:] Right, so they can find the virus in anything when they’re just killing cells. They can find the – quote – “virus”.
[Adams:] This is extraordinary. I really appreciate both of you taking the time to re-state these things. And I know you’ve talked about this hundreds of times. It’s just that it takes a lot of repetition for a lot of us to get this, even myself.
[Kaufman:] Mike, this was, you know – whenever you have to shift paradigm like this. Because you know we’re really challenging germ theory here. It just takes a while to settle in. It’s a process. But it can really help you look at all of the other scientific reporting that’s going on, if you realize that there is actually no virus to speak of. And what you see is that, time and time again, the way that they do these studies is through simulations of various types. So they do actual virtual computer simulations for creating the genome sequence and for showing any potential benefit of masks – because when they study masks in the real world, they’re not effective.
But they’ve gone as far as to actually make what they call pseudo-viruses of variants because they don’t actually have a real variant because it doesn’t actually exist. So what they do is they take a shell from another virus, empty it out, and put synthetic genes in there that they created in a lab synthesizer. And then they put that in a cell culture and then mix it, you know, with antibodies that they say are this covid antibody, or that covid antibody. And that’s how they get information about the variants.
[Adams:] It’s extraordinary. And I think the phrase they use is “in silico” which means it’s a computer simulation. And even when – I’ve got to related to you that when I sat down with Thermo-Fishers sales representative, we were trying to purchase PCR equipment over a year ago for our food science lab because we were trying to save time versus incubating salmonella samples, and so on. They had promised: Oh, you can do it in 12 hours instead of 72 hours by using PCR. So I said, great! Come to our office. Meet with us. Show us how this works. So they came and I had some questions for them. Such as: How do I tell the quantity? What’s the quantitation capability of this instrument?
And they said: “Oh, there is none. It can’t give you any quantity.” And I said: Well, how do I know if food is contaminated to a certain threshold – or is it just the presence of one strain of genetic material? I’ve got to throw this whole lot out? Because, you know, there are standards. There are standards. There are European standards. There are FDA standards. You know, even salmonella. Total plate count. Yeast and mold. There’s a certain threshold. You go beyond that, it’s considered contaminated. Below that, it’s considered safe by the FDA. So you’ve got to have quantitation! They can’t provide that! And then I said, well, where am I going to get the samples to run against? And they said, “No, you just download them.” And I said: “What do you mean? I’m downloading salmonella now? What are you talking about?” They said, “No, it’s just digital libraries. And then you can update ‘em and just download them. And that’s what it’s looking for.” So – you’re absolutely right. That’s when I realized: it’s all a simulation.
[Cowan:] But they tell you, you know, if you go to the original Christian Drosten paper, where the PCR segments came from, the primers. Now you have to understand, there’s two premises of the PCR test: 1) that you know, you know that this primer, this sequence, came from only that virus. Right? It’s unique to that virus. And then the 2nd premise is: no other organism has that sequence. Right? You know it came from that one, and no other organism has that. And you look at it – and I’ve said this so many times I have it memorized. They said: “This was a challenge for us to develop a robust test because we never had possession of the virus.
[Adams:] That’s right. I saw that in the documents.
[Cowan:] Wait a minute! You cannot say this thing – right? We’re talking about a thing. We’re not talking about a feeling or, you know, an emotional release or a thought or an idea. We’re talking about a thing. You can’t say this piece of the thing came from the whole thing, unless you have the thing! Now that there’s 93 human sequences that have the same, you know, sequence. 91 (I think the number was) microbes. So the whole thing is nonsense!
[Cowan:] You’re exactly right! And I’ve been getting the confirmation from other sources as well. I’m not going to say the name of the doctor. But a doctor that I’ve interviewed before was playing around with the BLAST Software you’re both familiar with. And they fed in one of these gene sequences of the Delta variant (I think it was), and the Blast software came back and said: “That’s Homo sapiens.” Right, so, okay! So they’re testing to see if you’re human or something! But the other thing is I think mainstream science says that this virus has (I think) 33,000 genes or something in that range. Perhaps you can correct me on that. But then, the so-called PCR test is testing for how many base pairs? You know, what? Fifty? A hundred? And just like you said, Dr. Cowan, how can that be unique to that so-called virus? It isn’t unique!
[Cowan:] It is not unique! And because, if you don’t have possession of the thing first – which they all admit they don’t – then you can’t say that this piece of it came from that thing. That’s how human beings think. You can’t say this paragraph came from this book, unless you have the book first.
[Cowan:] You can’t say this piece of a unicorn came from a unicorn, unless you’ve seen a unicorn.
[Adams:] I think the CDC has seen some unicorns recently.
Doctors Explain Why “Covid-19” And The “Delta Variant” Don’t Exist – Must-See Video
Actress calls religious exemptions “dumb excuses,” has miscarriage three weeks after booster shot
35-year-old receives Pfizer injection to save his job, suffers massive heart attack, dead 12 days later
35-year-old woman “never thought it would be me” as post-Pfizer pericarditis cripples her existence
Geraldo Rivera Tells Fox Viewers “You Have No Rights When It Comes To The Vaccine"
Judge faces backlash for sentencing an admitted rapist to probation - 1 minute video