In their “Statement on Virus Isolation“, propagators of the claim that SARS-CoV-2 “does not exist” Andrew Kaufman, Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morell cite three sources to support their argument. In this video (also on Rumble), I demonstrate their lack of credibility by showing how their claims are contradicted by their own cited sources.
Here are their three cited sources:
- Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, Kenya
- Extracellular Vesicles Derived From Apoptotic Cells: An Essential Link Between Death and Regeneration
- The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses
I also mention these source from the literature:
- Primary Isolation of Viruses
- Cutting Edge: Circulating Exosomes with COVID Spike Protein Are Induced by BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech) Vaccination prior to Development of Antibodies: A Novel Mechanism for Immune Activation by mRNA Vaccines
And here are some related articles and videos:
Actually Jeremy, I believe they (Cowan, Kaufman, Morell…) are stating that there are NO viruses at all. This whole category has been improperly created from the very beginning. You are basing all your conclusions on the fact that the information to which you are quoting and referring is correct, when in reality that information may not be correct.
Jeanette, the only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that you didn’t watch my video before commenting to attempt to refute it.
To illustrate, you say that they are actually saying that there are no viruses at all, as though that was contrary to what I say in the video, when in fact I point this out myself. Further, you say I’m basing all my conclusions on the premise that my cited sources are correct, when in fact, if you had watched the video, you would see that I actually examine the sources cited by Kaufman et al. These are sources that Kaufman et al. are claiming to be correct!
Please watch the video before commenting. That is a strike one violation of the terms of use of the comments section of this website, which you should also familiarize yourself with.
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/about/terms-of-use/#Comments
Your discussion in the first three minutes of the dictionary definition of the word “isolation” isn’t convincing. Of course the critics of virology understand that the dictionary definition (or plain-sense meaning) of the term differs from the technical definition — this is not in dispute. The point is that that the plain-sense meaning of the term is logically sound in an investigation that desires to measure an effect (e.g., does a “thing by itself” cause the harm?), while the critics claim technical definition of the term is not, because, by definition, it is not empirically assessing the “thing by itself.” Rather, it is assessing “the thing with many additives (or some other plain-sense paraphrase of the technical definition)”; therefore, the critics continue, the technical methodology must necessarily justify itself: Why is this technical definition of isolation a sufficient proof of a virus in the culture? Again, to go back to the 1954 paper on measles isolation by Enders, which ushered in the cell methodology, he admits the same thing: “The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses obtained from measles.” Cowan et al are not ignorant of the science; they are offering a methodological critique, which is something that it’s not evident you are understanding.
I encourage you to watch the whole video.
First of all I would like to say thank you Jeremy, for taking the time and effort to sift through all this information as nobody else seems to be and I for one, like most of us here, want to get to the bottom of this discussion, to what is true.
I have watched your entire video as I have the last few videos you have put out and I have been wanting to make some comments regarding this latest video.
With all due respect Jeremy, it seems to me you are not hearing what the Cowan camp is saying or intentionally misleading (hopefully not), and your video clearly has not yet disproven what Cowan et al are saying.
For Eg. Their first reference, that you elaborated on, clearly differentiates between the ADDITION of new cell/genetic material. In this study, the key word was ‘indigenous’ cell culture. Correct me if you think I’m wrong, but to me that means the HOST cell culture, not an ADDITIONAL cell CULTURE, not even additional from the host itself, let alone from a different species. Indigenous means the original cell culture supposedly infected by the virus, taken from a sick person who should have plenty of replicating virus. Why would you need to ADD new cell culture? You are not trying to grow more virus, just isolate what you already have. So far, this does not in any way contradict and in fact falls in line with the arguments of Cowan et al.
And just because the ‘scientific literature’ defines virus isolation as the addition of new cell cultures, and that this is the gold standard, doesn’t mean that it is a true isolation. How could it ever be when you are adding MORE cell and genetic materials?? I don’t understand how this escapes you. You justify it by saying that viruses are obligate parasites needing cell culture, but as I said, the host already should have plenty of virus particles, not requiring growth of more.
Also inline with this argument is a statement made by Kaufman a while back which I haven’t seen refuted, and that is: don’t viruses supposedly spread in the air or via droplets, that is, OUTSIDE of cell culture. So why can’t we isolate it without additional cell culture??
Second, you ridicule Cowan et al for cherry picking data from a particular study even though the study may contradict their overall argument. But that doesn’t mean they agree with the entire study conclusions or entire methodology and rationale. They are simply using an element of that study, a bit of information, to prove their point. I don’t see the issue there. Yes the first study talks about viruses as bacteriophages and their isolation but this does not mean that viruses exist in the context we have all been led to believe, despite the authors belief that they do. Cowan et al are supportive of viral like particles existing, just not yet proven to be ‘parasitic’ and ‘attacking’ hosts. The point they were making is that this paper seemed to be supportive of using ‘indigenous’ cell cultures, showing it is possible not to need additional cell cultures.
Regarding their argument about genetic sequencing, my understanding (I am more than open to being wrong in my interpretation) of their argument is that the sequencing methodology you described in your previous video (metagenomic sequencing?) was that it was likely to be innacurate for a few reasons. First of all, again, you are adding more genetic material by using additional cell culture and why would you do this to yourself because it complicates your efforts of isolation, and second of all, when this genetic material is chopped up into smaller bits, to use the puzzle analogy, is there only one correct match for these chopped up particles?? Or multiple?? Are the bits going to be so unique that they can only have one match? If so I agree that this would strengthen your argument, BUT if as I suspect, there are multiple matches, given there are millions of particles chopped up, and therefore many, many, many optional sequences and matches, therefore grossly complicating and confusing the ability to sequence ACCURATELY and prove the existence of these viruses and their exact genomes. This is what I believe is their point.
Finally, regarding the third cited study, yes, as you say, here the scientists do in fact differentiate viruses from exosomes etc and this does seem to contradict Cowans arguments, but it seems to me the point Cowan is making, is how do these scientists have such confidence, when they are using (according to Cowan et al) methodologies which are unscientific and unproven since they are using cell cultures, and chemicals which are known carcinogens and most certainly produce dead and dying cell debrie, also known as exosomes.. So how can we ever know the difference and what is what!?
Thank you for your time,
Laz
I do not understand what you are trying to communicate here or where your point of confusion is. The “host” was bacteria. The scientists cultured the viruses in bacteria. That directly contradicts the claim for which Kaufman et al. cite the study.
Perhaps you could provide a quote from the study so that I can understand what you are referring to when you say that it “clearly differentiates between the ADDITION of new cell/genetic material.”
Again, I do not understand what you mean by “the addition of new cell cultures”. If you could provide the passage of the study that you are referring to so I know how to interpret that, it would be helpful.
You are simply repeating the same argument used by Kaufman et al. that I addressed in the video. I feel no need to repeat myself.
It certainly does not escape me that Kaufman et al. argue that what scientists do isn’t “isolation” according to their layperson’s dictionary-definition understanding of the word. That is why I address that argument in the video.
What scientists mean when they describe “isolation” of viruses does not require justification. You do not understand. They do not use cell culture simply because they “require” more virus. They use cell culture to observe for viral replication and cytopathic effects because observing those outcomes tells them that they have isolated a virus from a patient sample.
I also do not understand what you mean by this question. If we interpret the question with scientists’ meaning of the word “isolate”, then you are essentially asking why scientists can’t isolate the virus without isolating the virus. Is your reasoning that since airborne virus is outside of the living body, therefore scientists should be able to observe the virus directly from the air rather than having to isolate it using cell culture? I don’t have a better guess at what you might be thinking, so you’ll have to elucidate your reasoning for me.
I beg your pardon, but cherry picking information is intellectual dishonesty.
Hence my appropriate use of the term “cherry picking”.
The issue there is the intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking.
I feel you are failing to grasp the significance of the fact that the study that Kaufman et al. said showed the “proper” method of isolation cultured the viruses in cells. Please take some time to think about what that means in terms of their credibility.
I’d be happy to continue this discussion after you’ve taken the time to process the significance of that observation.
Could you please tell me what you understand or think the authors of the first referenced article meant by “indigenous” cell hosts?
To me it means either the original bacteria collected from the lake, NOT additional bacteria collected from elsewhere or especially not different species of bacteria. Isn’t that what this whole debate is about? Cowan et al essentially has an issue with adding ADDITIONAL, EXTERNAL cell hosts to the original viral sample, especially with foreign genetic material like from other species of animal or bacteria, whereas you and the scientists you quote, think this is perfectly sensible. Right? Isn’t that what we are talking about here? Lets try clarify point by point before we move on further.
Laz, you asked:
For context, here is an excerpt from the abstract in which the term “indigenous” is used:
In this context, “indigenous” means from that local environment, so you appear to me to understand its use correctly. However, I do not understand what you mean by asking, “Isn’t that what this whole debate is about?”
To reiterate, Cowan et al claim that the “proper” way to isolate a virus does not involve the use of cell culture, but their own cited sources shows the isolation of viruses (bacteriophages, specifically) cultured in cells (single-celled organisms, specifically).
Therefore, their central claim is contradicted by their own source. I hope that clarifies the issue for you.
Their (Cowan et al) claim is that in order to truly isolate viruses, you should not be adding OUTSIDE/EXTERNAL/ADDITIONAL cultures, but rather using the original sample/culture, from the original host. They are not against using cell cultures, they are against using additional/external cell cultures. There’s a big difference, don’t you think?
By using “indigenous” cultures (as we have now agreed upon), the first referenced paper did this exact thing. They did not add external cultures, but rather the indigenous one, thereby not adding additional genetic material (thereby contaminating the original material to be tested) to the original sample, which is why I don’t see how this contradicts Cowan’s stand.
Laz,
You are mistaken. The claim by Cowan et al have continuously and consistently made is that the “proper” method of virus isolation does not involve the use of cell culture, period. Their logic is that inoculating the virus into host cells is the literal opposite of “isolating” the virus. This claim is contradicted by their own source, according to which the “proper” way to isolate a virus, by their own self-contradictory acknowledgment, is to culture it in host cells.
You are making a different argument, which I have never seen Cowan et al make, which is in effect that the cell culture should only be done using human cell lines as opposed to, for example, the Vero monkey cell line. But that argument becomes moot in light of the fact that scientists have also isolated SARS-CoV-2 using human cell lines, such as this example in which the virus was cultured in human airway cells:
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66815
Hi Jeremy (and everyone else)
Thank you Jeremy for sharing your genuine concerns and for taking the time and effort to make this page and the video. Important matters are worthy of investigation, time effort etc.
2 Quotes from you on this page.
“I demonstrate their lack of credibility by showing how their claims are contradicted by their own cited sources.”*
“These are sources that Kaufman et al. are claiming to be correct!”**
I think you are absolutely correct.
If they are claiming their cited sources to be correct then their own declared basis shows them to obviously self contradict.
I think you are absolutely mistaken.
Why?
Because it is clear they are not claiming those sources to be correct throughout.
It is possible for deliberately misleading literature to have excellent principles and facts within it while at the same time being an instrument of societal deception and delusion.
For example the Jesus Character expresses the true principle that if the facts within you are false then you will defend and propagate them, in:
“If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”
But just because I cite that verse from Matthew Ch 6, verse 23b and agree with it doesn’t mean I agree with the overall mythological deception that was and still is the orthodox position of billions!
I could use the Jesus’ “light within you” principle and turn it on Biblical dogma to show it is self contradictory. But using your logic, a you could reference the bible where Jesus says he is the way, truth and life, to dismiss my refutation as self contradictory according to the source I cited.
Just because I quote a bit of truth from the bible doesn’t mean its a source I’m “claiming to be correct!”**
Just because they quote parts of journal items, doesn’t mean it’s a source they are “claiming to be correct!”**
The Judaeo-Christian deception was and still is an elaborate false History, in a religious/mythological genre that was fabricated and then woven into the structures and beliefs of western society. It was based on a philosophical plan laid out in Plato, particularly Plato’s ‘Laws’. ***
It’s clear to me the philosophical plan of Plato has been significantly refined and upgraded and undergone a genre transition out of a mythological format into one that uses fabricated History and Science, portrayed as true to deceive and mislead, also on a grand scale. Those that believe these new narratives, genuinely consider them to be honest and competent History and Science when, in reality, they are an upgraded form of the historically God/Jesus philosophically planned deception, slowly and elaborately regrown into a new genre.
*Source: Jeremy’s article above
**Source: Response to Jeanette McKee’s comment, by Jeremy, on this page.
*** “Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible” By Russell E. Gmirkin, Copyright Year 2017, ISBN 9780367878368, Published December 12, 2019 by Routledge, 346 Pages
May you be and fare well in all things
sincerely
david
Note: I have watched the entire video.
David,
That makes absolutely no sense given the context.
Again, to support the claim that the “proper” method of virus isolation does not involve the use of cell culture, they cite a study in which viruses were isolated in cell culture. It makes no sense to insist that I am wrong on the grounds that they weren’t claiming that the source they were citing is correct about how virus isolation is done. The whole purpose of citing the source was to derive authority from the source.
My argument stands.
Hi Jeremy
Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated.
Regarding:
“That makes absolutely no sense given the context.”
Here is some context.
Point 1: They consider virus isolation as currently done, to be unsound.
Point 2: So when they reference papers with methods they consider unsound, they are clearly not claiming them to be sound in such parts.
Point 3: It seems to me, any claim to the contrary, “… makes absolutely no sense given this context.”
If an argument is based on premises that aren’t true it falls. I think I have shown that the clearly stated premises, i.e. “their claims are contradicted by their own cited sources.” and “These are sources that Kaufman et al. are claiming to be correct!” are not substantially relevant in the first case or true in the second.
I think it makes sense to say your argument is mistaken, on the grounds that they weren’t claiming that the source they were citing is correct about how virus isolation is done.
Because of the reasons outlined above, I don’t think your argument stands.
Regarding:
“The whole purpose of citing the source was to derive authority from the source.”
Assigning purpose to others actions is usually speculative. In this case, because Kaufman etc obviously disagree with aspects of the papers they refer to, they obviously don’t consider them to carry the authority of fidelity to reality in some key facets. And just as obviously they agree with some aspects. Which parts they agree with are to be intelligently inferred according to context.
Again, thank you very much for your reply. I have enjoyed thinking about and responding to it.
Note:
Fabricated philosophical narrative Science cannot be based on completely sound methodology. It seems to me the various frauds you write about in other aspects of the COVID issue extend into this area as well. It takes a lot of time and effort to get to the bottom of much that is going on in the world today. I wish you all the best in your investigations and uncovering of criminal activities of Governments and Corporations.
Have a lovely day
sincerely
david
David,
Dude, they literally cited that source to support their claim about the “proper” method of isolating viruses. It is nonsensical to argue that they weren’t claiming that the source is correct about the “proper” method when that is their whole purpose in citing the source.
This is an equally nonsensical argument. For what other purpose do you propose they cited the source if not to support the claim for which they cited it? It is not “speculative” that the purpose of citing sources is to support the claims for which those source are cited. It is a logical truism.
Hi Jeremy
Thank you very much for your reply
Your stated basis of debunking
“I demonstrate their lack of credibility by showing how their claims are contradicted by their own cited sources.” Which was clarified when you commented; “These are sources that Kaufman et al. are claiming to be correct!”
From your latest reply
“they weren’t claiming that the source they were citing is correct about how virus isolation is done.”
Thank you for confirming the basis of my judgment and adding weight to it when I wrote:
“I think you are absolutely mistaken.
Why?
Because it is clear they are not claiming those sources to be correct throughout.”
Thank you for agreeing with me and hence indicating that the premise of your debunking is unsound and hence had weak standing to begin with.
In my opinion it was not possible for you to use a methodologically sound argument to ‘debunk’ their position and for whatever purpose or reason, you used an unsound one. I hold to my position that it is speculative to infer purpose/motive and so keep it to the written facts, which I quoted above. Why you did it is something only you can truly know.
(In my experience I have encountered people that don’t know they are in a state of strong belief and they are genuinely unaware of their unsound methodology and subconscious twisting things to preserve their mental image of how they see things.)
Regarding:
“For what other purpose do you propose they cited the source if not to support the claim for which they cited it? It is not “speculative” that the purpose of citing sources is to support the claims for which those source are cited. It is a logical truism.”
You’ve taken what I wrote and put it into a different context. The original context was to do with drawing authority from the cited sources. You wrote: “The whole purpose of citing the source was to derive authority from the source.” I wrote: “In this case, because Kaufman etc obviously disagree with aspects of the papers they refer to, they obviously don’t consider them to carry the authority of fidelity to reality in some key facets.”
Some people are not interested in supporting or debunking claims but in dialogue for the purpose of reaching truth and hearing others opinions and facts. It seems to me they could have been simply saying we find certain parts to be factual and using that as a standard or measure, by which to judge other things. The law of non-contradiction means that if a fact is truly a fact anything that contradicts it is necessarily false. Highlighting points and discussing them is how we learn and refine our knowledge. Perhaps that was why they cited parts. I don’t know their motives, reasons, purposes … only what they did, only the action.
Regarding
Your statement that “It is not “speculative” that the purpose of citing sources is to support the claims for which those source are cited.” That is often how they are used. In addition though, isn’t a fact that portions and papers are cited to disagree with them and to discuss why one disagrees? Isn’t it possible to cite something one is unsure about and to seek discussion?
“It is a logical truism.”
Logical truisms are only valid if they conform to the non-contradictory nature of reality. Reality is the base truism that matters, because it is substantial. Those that use words to define shape and view reality, have it backwards, reality must be used to base definitions of words and thinking otherwise they’re not on the most reliable foundation. What you claimed as a logical truism, in reality does not hold as you will already know if you have thought about and answered the questions I asked about it above.
It seems to me you may have created what you thought was a logical truism to debunk them, but it didn’t conform to the reality of this matter and as a consequence your debunking, never debunked for real. Then, when compared to reality it’s lack of substance becomes apparent which is why your last reply was self contradictory and it is a law of logic that self contradictory statements, positions etc are false. It seems to me you may be changing your mind but not have gotten there yet, hence having two types of thinking that contradict, at once and coming out in your latest reply.
The evidence of your self contradiction:
“they weren’t claiming that the source they were citing is correct about how virus isolation is done.”
“It is nonsensical to argue that they weren’t claiming that the source is correct about the “proper” method …”
The above contradictory quotes come from your last reply, in paragraphs that follow each other.
Well Jeremy, thank you again for the dialogue. I consider the main points I brought up to have gone full circle and to have been confirmed by you but not fully seen or acknowledged. Your mind and how you see things, naturally is your responsibility. Thus further discussion would likely only be going in circles or on tangents. So I’ll leave any final remarks to you as you wish and leave off this dialogue for which I again thank you.
Be and fare well in truth Jeremy
sincerely
david
David,
Than you for proving your own bad faith and dishonesty by blatantly lying that in my prior reply, I said “they weren’t claiming that the source they were citing is correct about how virus isolation is done”, when in truth what I said was “It is nonsensical to argue that they weren’t claiming that the source is correct about the ‘proper’ method when that is their whole purpose in citing the source.”
You are done here. I warned you about violating the terms of use with such trolling behavior, and I see no reason to continue granting you the privilege of commenting here when you persist in outright lying this way. The fact that you feel it necessary to falsely put words in my mouth to support your own position should be a clue to you about the rightness of your position. I would merely observe how, in doing so, you are simply following the example set by Cowan et al. in pathologically mischaracterizing their own cited sources.