I will try to keep this brief – although that is hard, because I’m fighting against people’s “feelings” instead of facts.
When the other side LIES all the time, it creates a “feeling” that they’re lying about everything.
Yes, they ARE lying about everything – but the lies are often very sophisticated, being composed of a matrix of solid and hard-won truths, held together by crafty lies.
If you’re going to FIGHT BACK, then I say FIGHT BACK SMART.
There has been a very successful strain of disinformation used to make our side seem very unconvincing to normies (to put it mildly).
That strain is the “there is no virus” deception.
Many times we tolerate this, because we don’t want to discourage our “fellow skeptics”, but it is critical that we refute nonsense on our own side.
In the past I’ve devoted occasional comments to putting down disinformation to the tune of “there is no virus” and “the virus was never isolated”, but after this last time, meaning yesterday, I’ve decided to just GUT this beast right on the dissection table, under the glaring lights of its own post, so that the “debunking” has its own URL, suitable for posting in response to well-meaning people on our side, who think “no virus” is a tenable position.
NO. It is not tenable. You are being BAITED into nonsense, so that you are no longer effective. You are being baited into becoming a “FEELZ” person, like reliable Democrats.
The “there is no virus” position is basically the “new flat earth” of biology. You’ll see why momentarily.
An Example of “There Is No Virus / Isolation”
I want to thank Canadian Guest for bringing an example of this disinformation to the board for my consideration. Bringing some FRESH RATS to this SCIENCE HAWK is always appreciated.
This is why I don’t restrict the bringing of “propaganda” and potential disinformation here. We’re adults. We can DEAL with it – and often very usefully. I get more truth out of Russian “propaganda” than out of most MSM “explainers”. Funny how that works.
WE will be the judge of truth – NOT “them”.
Here is the video. Watch if you want – particularly after reading this.
There are some tells OTHER than what I’m going to talk about, that this is an interesting construction designed to derail critics of the vaccines. Tell me what you think “smells” like targeted disinformation in the comments.
Did CIA or FIB make this? Did Chinese intelligence? Who are these people?
One of the centerpieces of “disproving” that viruses exist, is to engage in passive-aggressive science using what are called “Koch’s postulates”.
Koch’s postulates were a brilliant set of standards from the beginning of microbiology, designed to help prove that an illness was actually caused by a microbe, rather than a bodily dysfunction of some kind.
- The microorganism must be found in abundance in all organisms suffering from the disease, but should not be found in healthy organisms.
- The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
- The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
- The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.
Wikipedia has an excellent and quick presentation about Koch’s postulates AND the problems therein.
You can see a slideshow which explains Koch’s Postulates HERE:
You would be very smart to notice something on the LAST slide.
“It is sometimes impossible to satisfy all of Koch’s postulates.”
One of the ways in which this happens, is that “pure culture” (stated in the second postulate) varies between a laboratory vacuum and a jungle floor. If you’re a “purist”, nothing will pass the postulates. If you’re laissez-faire about things, everything will pass. If you’re SMART about things, and demand a SMARTLY PURE culture, you will get great results, and Koch’s postulates will continue to work for even crazy things like viruses, prions, etc.
What’s up with viruses?
The problem is that viruses are not microbes in the same sense as bacteria, protozoans, and similar microorganisms which are well-handled by Koch’s original postulates, where “pure cultures” were “biologically sterile, but molecularly fertile” mixtures.
Viruses are, quite literally, molecular parasites. The transmission of viruses is both more demanding and less demanding on the nature of a “pure medium”, than is transmission of bacteria. Viruses transmit in a different way.
Viruses need almost nothing to survive in, but they need CELLS to reproduce in. Viruses do not grow in simple chemical brews. They need CELLS. Cells not only contain a lot of stuff of “their own” – they also contain a lot of viruses, AND the encoding for these and other viruses.
If you demand a “cell-free medium” for growth of a virus, you have basically sabotaged science “under the color of science”.
See how that works?
The history of Koch’s postulates, and the upgrading of Koch’s original postulates to take care of things like viruses, prions, etc., is discussed in THIS article:
NIH Summary: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC172879/
PDF of Article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC172879/pdf/090018.pdf
SO – you will almost always see some kind of reference to Koch’s postulates, in “there is no virus” disinformation. Koch’s postulates are the perfect “medium” for passive-aggressive anti-science.
BUT WAIT! There’s MOAR!
“BUT MUH NON-ISOLATION!”
The next, and actually essential part of the disinformation, is the allegation that the virus behind COVID-19 was never isolated.
It was not only isolated early and often – it is ROUTINELY isolated, all over the world, in order that genetic studies OF THE VIRUS can be done.
Think of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists who gather “clout” in molecular biology by analyzing the RNA of a single virus, and thereby look for small changes in that RNA – meaning a few nitrogenous bases among hundreds of thousands. How do they “isolate” the RNA of the virus from samples taken from people? How do they NOT get a bunch of human nasal RNA, plus the RNA of all our OTHER embedded viruses, AND nasal bacteria, mixed up in the sample, screwing up the results?
It’s simple. They GROW THE VIRUS in a NONINFECTED cellular medium that LOVES the virus. They filter and separate the budding and “transmitting” virus from the cells. And then they check the RNA of the filtered virus.
WHICH LOOKS LIKE THIS!
“Pictures or it didn’t happen.”
You can even see the damn spikes! Of course, they didn’t really need to do this – the RNA is the real convincer – the FINGERPRINT – but a picture is helpful for the doubters.
Sure sounds like “isolation” to me!
One of the best ways to demonstrate this to you, is to simply READ YOU THE PAPER where the pictures came from – back in the early days of COVID-19.
This paper was “e-published” back in March of 2020, when “Wuhan Coronavirus” had just been renamed to “SARS-CoV-2” because of China and Democrats (more on that later). The paper was actually received in February, around the time I was recovering from the original Wuhan strain of COVID-19, or something immediately descended from it.
This is from a Japanese group located in Tokyo. This is not by any means the earliest research on SARS-CoV-2 virus. It’s an IMPROVEMENT paper. These guys are saying “Hey! It’s easier to isolate this damn virus using OUR new method!”
Here is a text version of the paper, emphasizing the abstract.
Enhanced isolation of SARS-CoV-2 by TMPRSS2-expressing cells
Shutoku Matsuyama firstname.lastname@example.org, Naganori Nao, Kazuya Shirato, +14 , Miyuki Kawase, Shinji Saito, Ikuyo Takayama, Noriyo Nagata, Tsuyoshi Sekizuka https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1302-5472, Hiroshi Katoh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8613-4717, Fumihiro Kato, Masafumi Sakata, Maino Tahara, Satoshi Kutsuna, Norio Ohmagari, Makoto Kuroda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0487-4405, Tadaki Suzuki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3820-9542, Tsutomu Kageyama, and Makoto Takeda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8194-7727 email@example.comAuthors Info & Affiliations
Edited by Yuan Chang, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, and approved March 5, 2020 (received for review February 11, 2020)
March 12, 2020
117 (13) 7001-7003
A novel betacoronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which caused a large respiratory outbreak in Wuhan, China in December 2019, is currently spreading across many countries globally. Here, we show that a TMPRSS2-expressing VeroE6 cell line is highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, making it useful for isolating and propagating SARS-CoV-2. Our results reveal that, in common with SARS- and Middle East respiratory syndrome-CoV, SARS-CoV-2 infection is enhanced by TMPRSS2.
As a bit of an aside, you will note that the editor is a Chinese researcher at an American university. The CCP has no problem pushing on the “social” buttons of American science, AND IT DOES. There was no way that the name “Wuhan coronavirus” was going to last. Think about it. This is subtle, but it’s the way things are now.
There are some nice graphics in the paper, too, including pictures of the virus.
It is EXTREMELY helpful to simply READ what the authors say, in recounting what they did.
I’ve put in BOLD what they DID.
Seven clinical specimens (throat swabs or sputum) obtained from seven SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were inoculated into VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells, which were monitored daily for cytopathic effect (CPE). These clinical specimens were deidentified prior to use, and this study was approved by the ethics committee of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Japan (approval no. 1091). Informed consent was obtained from all participants, from which the subjects were obtained, or their legally acceptable representatives for sample donation. In five cases among the seven, clear CPE with detachment/floating (black arrows, Fig. 1B) and syncytium formation (white arrows, Fig. 1B) developed at 2 or 3 d postinfection (p.i.) (Table 1). The virus titers in culture supernatants of the five cases at 3 d p.i. were 4.6 × 106 to 6.8 × 107 median tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) per mL (Table 1). Typical coronavirus particles were detected by electron microscopy (Fig. 1C). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) of case Wk-521 detected the nearly full-length genome sequence from SARS-CoV-2 with >99.9% homology (1, 2) (GISAID database ID EPI_ISL_408667). Unexpectedly, the NGS data showed contaminated mycoplasma sequences (Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma arginini) from VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells. CPE in VeroE6 cells persistently infected with SARS-CoV was enhanced by infection with Mycoplasma fermentans (8), but whether a similar situation exists for SARS-CoV-2–related CPE in this cell line is unclear.
The viral RNA copies in the clinical specimens used for virus isolation were estimated by real-time RT-PCR (9, 10). As expected, viral RNA copies in the clinical specimens in which CPE developed within 2 d p.i. were greater than those in the other specimens (Table 1).
VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells are superior to other cell lines tested in this study for SARS-CoV-2 isolation. Consistent with previous reports (2, 4), the amount of SARS-CoV-2 RNAs in the culture supernatants of Vero, Calu-3, and A549 cells 48 h p.i. was low and was measurably higher when VeroE6 cells were used. However, the viral RNA copies in the VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cell culture supernatants were >100 times greater than those from VeroE6 cells (Fig. 1 D and E). Data for SARS-CoV show that TMPRSS2 enhances its entry efficiency (5, 11). VeroE6 and VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells were infected with 10-fold serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 samples, and the infected cells were visualized by indirect immunofluorescent assays (Fig. 1E). The results showed that VeroE6/TMPRSS2 displayed ∼10-fold greater number of SARS-CoV-2–infected cells than the parental VeroE6 cells. These data suggest that, in common with SARS-CoV, TMPRSS2 may also play an important role in SARS-CoV-2 cell entry.
Pay special attention to THIS PART which is not highlighted above, but which shows the level of ATTENTION that was paid to the results.
Unexpectedly, the NGS data showed contaminated mycoplasma sequences (Mycoplasma hyorhinis and Mycoplasma arginini) from VeroE6/TMPRSS2 cells. CPE in VeroE6 cells persistently infected with SARS-CoV was enhanced by infection with Mycoplasma fermentans (8), but whether a similar situation exists for SARS-CoV-2–related CPE in this cell line is unclear.
See what I was talking about with a “pure medium”? These mycoplama are very common contaminants of cell cultures. Note that these scientists are not HIDING the presence of contaminants in their “pure” medium. On the contrary, they’re saying they spotted the contamination, and are accounting for it.
The bottom line is that these people know exactly what they are doing, dealing with the tricky nature of Koch’s postulates under the realities of working with viruses – some of the hardest biology that can be done.
And THAT brings me to a personal observation.
On Difficult Technology
Science is a game that everybody CAN play, and I would go so far as to say it’s a game that everybody SHOULD play. You should be teaching your kids science and art, in exactly the way you should teach them football, baseball, and ice skating.
And just like with PROFESSIONAL SPORTS, in which people who you respect make errors that you call out, it helps to RESPECT the pros of science – EVEN AS YOU POINT OUT THEIR ERRORS, WHICH YOU SHOULD.
We don’t believe professional athletes are “always right” – why should you believe the same things about scientists?
Back in my laboratory days, I had a couple of “lucky insights” connected by a lot of hard work, and they demonstrate how science gets past obstacles, including in particular other scientists.
Dissatisfied with my seemingly unexciting assigned research project, I was in the perfect mood when a colleague of mine drew something very interesting on the blackboard with a big chalk “X” through it.
“Why doesn’t this work?” was my question.
My colleague gave a reason that didn’t seem right to me, and then stated that he was abandoning that project. I asked if he minded if I tried it. He didn’t mind – he had already gotten a new assignment from our boss.
I picked up the gauntlet, and got things to work the very first time. The big chalk “X” was wrong. My insight was correct.
Happy that the abandoned research project was back in play, our boss allowed me to take it over and pursue it.
Pushing the idea through on a small scale, I actually got the entire project to work – but not to the satisfaction of skeptics. We didn’t have “clincher” proof. We needed to scale up to get that level of proof.
Scaling it up, however, failed. It took a lot of very interesting science to understand the whole process, and scale it up to the level that was necessary to convince the skeptics.
The problem was, not ALL of the skeptics were convinced. One skeptic, at the last minute, needed proof that would require even MORE scaling up.
The problem THERE is that NOT EVERYBODY could do the work.
When others could not duplicate my results, I was forced to do the even bigger scale-up myself, AND to do it under intense scrutiny, to figure out why *I* could do it and others could not.
The result was obvious proof that I had gotten it to work. The skeptic’s harassment had led to a magnificent NEW proof that neither we nor the skeptic had fully predicted. We had exceeded the level of proof that the skeptic demanded.
HOWEVER, this left open a subject that nobody really wanted to talk about.
Why weren’t others able to duplicate my results?
The sad fact is, science is filled with people who do not practice the habits necessary for success. They are not PERSISTENT when they need to be. They are not INSIGHTFUL in trying to get around problems. Even more importantly, they are not HOPEFUL that they CAN get around problems. This failure to have hope in overcoming obstacles is a HUGE problem in science. But likewise, many are not sufficiently DUBIOUS in trying to spot thousands of small potential problems, and doing what is necessary to prevent them. We have to be SKEPTICAL, too.
Even when we’re skeptical, sometimes we’re not skeptical enough. An excellent example is provided by the tragic death of Karen Wetterhahn, who died of dimethylmercury poisoning, when a few droplets of dimethylmercury splashed on and penetrated one of the thin latex gloves she was wearing. This was the level of protection recommended at the time, but it was not enough.
Karen had protected her coworkers by doing the work herself, instead of exposing THEM to the danger. She did the work “to code”, but it was still not enough. Part of her legacy is the habit of scientists in later years to use two or even three layers of gloves, when handling dangerously toxic and reactive substances. Many will use “one more than recommended” of just about any safety measure.
We have to LEARN and RETAIN thousands and thousands of such habits just to do some of the simplest scientific operations, like weighing out a substance properly.
The boss who I mentioned above loved to say “All the easy stuff has been done.” It’s SO true, even though it’s obviously an exaggeration. That is why there are amazing recent discoveries – every once in a while – of things that COULD have been discovered many years prior, and which were simply missed or overlooked. But for the most part, it’s true. Almost all of the easy and obvious stuff has been done.
So what is my point?
The point is, science is HARD – and yet you are allowed to criticize it – AND YOU SHOULD.
The trick is, criticizing it and BEING RIGHT. And you do NOT have to be an “expert”, or even a scientist, to be right.
In the case of Wetterhahn, it was not so much “penetrated” — which implies something physical, like piercing. Rather, dimethylmercury seeped through the nitrile gloves she was wearing, despite the general impression that they would be adequate protection.
A martyr to science, she took notes on the effects of the poison until it had sufficiently destroyed her brain to the point it was impossible to continue.
HA! I will stand by my choice of words, reviewer! And I will argue with the editor, who in this case is me ( 😉 ), that penetration includes all forms of seepage, dissolution, leak-finding, absorption, corrosion, and all other (cough) physical processes – including chemical ones. I could even cite my official sources having used that very word for this very case, except – well – I hate appealing to authorities, or using references! 😆
THANKS SO MUCH, WOLF MOON!
The claim that the virus hadn’t been isolated and identified never made sense to me.
There were/are sub-variants or strains within the larger CV19 family that were traced across the world…
3/29/20 – 8 STRAINS OF CORONAVIRUS SPREAD –
Scientists around the world are tracking at least eight strains of coronavirus around the world, using genetic detective work to show how the virus spreads.
I’m not sure what’s the difference between a variant and a strain.
Not sure why coronaviruses and flu viruses are constantly changing/mutating.
It’s ’cause they have little modular plug-in sections.
For instance, with the flu, there is an “H” plug and an “N” plug, so you get things like H1N3 flu.
Great concise explanation – thanks, Cthulhu!
Yes! This is a great way to make decisions about reliability of ideas.
When THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of scientists are getting excellent results upon which they can make further arguments successfully, based upon some idea, then replacing that idea with another MUST explain why all those scientists are getting the excellent results they are – and it needs to be a solid, complete explanation.
“There is no virus” leaves hundreds of thousands of scientists logically stranded. What explains their results?
Nothing but the virus – because “there is no virus” is WRONG.
I long since tired of trying to correct people who insist that it’s “just the flu” or “just a cold, colds are coronaviruses.” They usually are just trying to say “it’s no worse than” but in that case, say it that way.
It’s true that about 15 percent of “colds” are corona viruses, but they’re not THIS one, and the other 85 percent aren’t corona viruses at all.
And thank you for THAT!!! The “it’s the flu” idea (meaning it is REALLY just true influenza) was another damaging statement that would sometimes be promoted by the very same people pushing “there is no virus”. AAAUUURRRGGGHHH! 😆 🙄
Well, “sometimes” I really do believe that what people had WAS just the flu.
They were using PCR testing for covid, which, run with enough cycles, will tell you an orange has coronavirus.
So, sick people who were tested had “Covid” whether they actually had it, or not. Which is how the hospitals got all that extra Covid MONEY.
This is the problem with labeling the skeptics. They may mean what we think they mean, or they may be saying what I just stated, only badly. I know some of those skeptics.
Now, should we “train” them to say what they mean? If we can. But a lot of people are not that sophisticated.
We have to skeptical of skepticism – even our own! That is part of “ethical skepticism”, and why I like that TES guy’s approach. He always tempers his skepticism so that it is not “automatically adversarial”, but possibly “corrective”.
Yes – there was a LOT of cheating on COVID diagnosis – and the protocols were DESIGNED that way, using rationales that were filled with greed, avarice, conspiracy, and self-deception.
So YES – many people who were “diagnosed with COVID” did not have COVID – and that was due to malevolent, bad science.
AND logic can again come to the rescue here. SOME people had “it’s just the flu”. Others had actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. And together, they had numbers more useful to Democrats and Fauci and his coconspirators.
Thank you for a terrific post, and for the time and effort you put into it.
Yours Truly realizes that identifying the components of a virus has come a long way since the days of the Salk and Sabin vaccines (one has taken both).
Yes, we’ve come a long way, technologically. But I have to say, we’ve really fallen ethically from the early days of biotech.
Science has been steadily corrupted like every other arena in society. Self aggrandizement, laziness, some directors overarching agenda (read Fauci vs the end result is the same… bad science. To the assholes who say “trust the science” I’d give them the following article.
“This significantly underestimates the real frequency of misconduct, because data fabrication and falsification are rarely reported by whistleblowers (see Results), and are very hard to detect in the data . Even when detected, misconduct is hard to prove, because the accused scientists could claim to have committed an innocent mistake. Distinguishing intentional bias from error is obviously difficult, particularly when the falsification has been subtle, or the original data destroyed. In many cases, therefore, only researchers know if they or their colleagues have wilfully distorted their data.“
Great link – thanks for that!
Should read “Fauci vs Mikovits”
Patrick Gunnels unfortunately fell for the ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS VIRUSES” It seems to be based on saying electron microscopes are FAKE. Hubby, the physicist ,blew a gasket during the first part of the video and I got a lecture on how to measure the diameter of a molecule with a ruler. (LINK to experiment.) So I gave up trying to watch the whole video. Instead I looked at the author of the video.
I wrote this for Patrick and I want to post it here.
The let’s You and he Fight Dis-info War
First a bit about me. I was trained as a chemist and as a ASQ certified Quality Engineer (Think statistics). I have run analytical labs, written test methods and done trouble shooting in several factories. I also have a nice collection of papers and articles on Scientific Fraud.
My Mother was a victim of the DOD radiation experiments and her doctor, known as ‘The Butcher’ by his colleagues, finished her off by using her as a guinea pig for Chemo-therapy experiments.Needless to say I am NOT fond of Big Pharma or the medical profession. I and several others have been discussing the Covid Plandemic @ TheQtree. The following by the site owner is critical for understanding the Elites strategy as more and more evidence of there evil surfaces.
When the movie Plandemic came out the Elite were desperate to discredit the dissidents. Mikki Willis, the film maker, was targeted but more important to the elite was discrediting the scientists.
Wolfie covers the attacks:
June 10, 2021 The Magnetism Challenge: Part III – Suramin: A Lesson in Discreditation of Dissident Scientists and Science
This was an elegant trap because as singularzoe said
I too tried the magnet on the upper arm and it ‘stuck’ However it is also easy to prove to a laymen that magnets won’t stick to particles IN the arm.
It is often assumed by the laymen with some scientific training that the strength of a magnetic field obeys the inverse square law like light, gravity, and electrostatic charge. However the magnet field varies inversely with the third power of distance, or the inverse cube law. THAT IS A VERY FAST DECREASE IN STRENGTH over distance!
This can easily be proved with a frig magnet and a piece of 8X10 paper. You can use 32 wt resume paper or 20 weight copy paper. Place a frig magnet on the single sheet on the frig. The magnet has no problem holding the paper. Fold it in ½ and use your nails to make a good crease to reduce the ‘spring effect’ of the fold. Place the magnet in the middle of the paper. Repeat the folding. With my magnet it could not hold 4 thicknesses of folded 32 wt paper and 8 thicknesses of 20wt copy paper. If you cut the paper to eliminate the spring from the folds, it is 12 pieces of 20 wt. copy paper or about 1.5 +/- .03 milimeters in thickness (I can not find my micrometer to do a more accurate reading.)
If Plandemic the movie was a threat, think what the Elite think of the following threats:
* Attorney Thomas Renz, and America’s Frontline Doctors with lawsuits in six states
* Internationally Dr Reiner Füllmich and his Corona Investigative Committee as they start pursuing lawsuits in California and India.
THEN ADD PUTIN and the Ukraine bio-weapon labs….
Convincing Patriots viruses do not exist or better yet some of the prominent doctors would really help the Elite now wouldn’t it?
So lets look at Dr Kaufman.
Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a psychiatrist. His specialty is psychiatry of the criminal mind…. Hmmmm Dr. Kaufman was suspended from the residency program for theft of Amazon gift codes from the -–> GRANT PROGRAM ← . Duke University and Kaufman 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.
Medical board Consent Order: http://www.circare.org/pd/kaufman_20081126.pdf
This is a paper from the time period that Kaufman references:
Should We Use Law Enforcement for Emergency Transportation of People With Mental Illness?
I doubt it is the paper in question.
Research | Department of Biology – Duke University
Was that an NIH or DoD grant he stole from???
Sorry I would not trust that Kaufman is not ‘owned’ by the Elite.
Kaufman quotes AIDS virologist James E.K. Hildreth as saying “the virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word.”
The quote is from this paper: The Trojan exosome hypothesis
In other words the virus is masquerading as an exosome.
When appraised of Kaufman using this quote, Dr Hildreth tweeted:
Whether viruses exist or not DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is Kaufman can be easily smeared just as I did above and therefore can be used to smear others via association.
MORE AMMO against Kaufman:
SUNY Upstate Medical University Jul 2010 – Sep 2015
Andrew Kaufman, MD – Consultant – Self-employed | LinkedIn
Six Central New York companies to receive nearly $400,000 in state ‘grants for growth’
2/26/2016 Forensic psychiatric evaluation. It is on Zinnia Safety stationary but his signature is:
Yet his Linked-in page says he quit in 2013 when he started Zinnia Safety Systems.
There is this photo of Kaufman grinning while shaking the hand of Gov Cuomo.
It is probably taken at the state fair:
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo visits Upstate campus 2013
KAUFMAN THE REAL LIVE SNAKE OIL SALESMAN
Rapid Determination and Quantification of Nutritional and Poisonous Metals in Vastly Consumed Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine (Rejuvenator Shilajit) by Humans Using Three Advanced Analytical Techniques
Mines in Utah
OR: Wholesale, Bulk and Private Label from Pure Himalayan Shilajit
Small privately owned companies are a great way to wash BRIBE MONEY BTW.
Thanks for an outstanding explanation!
Yes, there is a virus – and it’s a designer chimeric strategically altered virus.
The virus and the vaccines were designed with an agenda – a population engineering agenda.
…young men and women with high testosterone and steroid users.
…seriously sick, elderly and obese.
…sperm and ovaries, causes miscarriages, birth defects, infertility.
They cause clots, heart problems, and other permanent serious illnesses, lower immune system and anti-cancer defenses.
Imagine in the future – couples – infertile because of the vaccines – being forced to buy or even forced to ‘host’ an implanted fetus approved by the state – that has been lab-produced and genetically altered for the state-desired traits – no choice of race, ethnicity, sex or genetic background, of course.
They really are inhumane ideologues who want that much control over humanity.
i agree that we should be skeptical of even our skepticism.
In the age of corrupted science we’re all being called upon to cling to honesty even as science abandons it.
An important video that Gail found!
I am going to add this here so it can be retrieved .
Steve Kirsch Joins Patrick Gunnels to Discuss Pathogenic Viruses
fleporeblog:30 start of a debate on Virus vs NO SUCH THING between Patrick Gunnels and Steve Kirsch
Here’s a Kirsch article from afterwards…..