In my opinion, this article gets off to a rough start with the citizen journalist asserting viral theory is 'imaginary'; for that reason I almost abandoned it. But further down he begins citing research which I found interesting, and which clarifies the issues surrounding the classification of genetic material as a 'virus'. I skipped ahead to a key linked document and found the propsed identity of what is currently classified as a virus.
14 July 2022
SETTLING THE VIRUS DEBATE
“A small parasite consisting of nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) enclosed in a protein coat that can replicate only in a susceptible host cell.”1
https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/media/SETTLING-THE-VIRUS-DEBATE-Source.pdf?_kx=6wx5Rny-mtgPr3k_R1W1IostUoGPKGhVhhCsIc-YMqI%3D.UpXyYd
Author's website:
https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/settling-the-virus-debate
I think the linked PDF in this comment post makes sensible recommendations to study and settle the debate once and for all - study it and settle it. Why not?This 'parasite' definition for virus gave me pause because of the attack and denial of Ivermectin to the masses, an anti parasitic.
Also, some here may remember articles by Dr. Lee Merrit during the Covid plandemic. When she was first quoted on FR threads, she was a back surgeon telling the public about products like Ivermectin and NAC, no doubt earning her the wrath of the medical regime. The last article I saw of hers online was her assertion that illness (either Covid and or cancer, I forget) was actually due to parasites, and she detailed the anti-parasitic regime she followed. So Ivermectin and 'parasitic' disease caught my eye.
I passed up the OP article at first, until I came to believe that some trolling directed at me in the last few days was specifically a setup to prevent me from posting this article if I saw it.
So I went back to the article, read it, found that the citizen journalist cited sources and research worth my time to review, and posted it.
I posted during the plandemic that the Covid virus had not been isolated, even though MSM sources insist it has, because China, the CDC's (PCR test), and the Covid 'vaccines' (Pfizer, Moderna) all said that an isolated sample of the Covid virus was 'unavailable' for their use. I received furious FR posts claiming the Covid virus had been isolated world-wide on a regular basis, but when I asked why 'everyone has it!' but no one used it throughout a supposedly existential threat, the room fell silent. (the vaccine, the PCR used to 'prove' the vaccine worked in trials, the PCR test used to drive lockdowns and diagnose illness and death rates for Covid, were all based on a 'related corona virus' not the Covid virus).
Traditionally the virus must be isolated (pure sample) and the sample is used to expose a patient to the illness; if the patient contracts the illness after exposure to an isolated sample, the cause/effect of the pathogen behind an illness is experimentally confirmed. THere's no explanation why China, the CDC, pharmas, the FDA couldn't obtain an isolated sample for use in managing the plandemic, or why they resorted to a 'related corona virus' when influenza is a corona virus which may therefore be mistaken for Covid.
Dr. Mikovits, who unfortunately crossed the will of Fauci and paid with her career, reputation, said she developed a cell line when she worked for the CDC which is used to test drugs. She searched through the pandemic research documentation of researchers claiming that they used an isolated sample of the Covid virus in their research (which was somehow unavailable to the CDC?). Every time she dug down below the layers of documentation, she found the code she originally used to identify the monkey vero kidney cell line she developed; in every case, she found the Covid viral research was performed on vero monkey kidney cells and not demonstrated to occur outside those cells, (virus not tested on human cells).
Mikovits also found that some researchers claimed to use an isolated Covid sample but in fact used a 'lavage' or a mixture of different kinds of viruses and bacteria - which is insufficient to prove which pathogen caused what illness.
The process of testing a person with an isolated virus to identify the causative pathogen is part of what is known as Koch's Postulate, which was an approach refined and published in 1890. I learned this from a fellow FReeper and started referring to that postulate (isolate and test) in posts. This is the method used to identify which pathogen caused which disease.
Obviously in a pandemic, Koch's Postulates may be adapted for use. Even patients who don't become ill because their immune system fought off the Covid virus successfully may have specimens of a virus in their bodies. Medical application changes over time and it's been over 150 years since the postulates were first developed.The parts that remain the same are a) isolate the virus and b) test patients to see if that isolated virus causes that disease.
There are naturally other ways that Koch's postulate is adapted to reality on the ground. However, for quite some time, the 'gold standard' or 'Standard Operating Procedure' for medical research is a) isolate the virus b) expose the patients c) if the disease in question develops in the test patients, the cause and effect pathogen behind the illness is confirmed. There are no circumstances which prevented China, Pfizer, Moderna or the CDC/NIH from Koch's 2nd and 3rd postulate: isolating the virus and testing to see if it is the correct pathogen creating the Covid illness.
Someone posted to me ridiculing my ignorance for 'not knowing' Koch's postulate doesn't work with viruses. The cited document in that post, and indeed the entire post doesn't prove anything - it cites ways in which rigid adherence to Koch's Postulate doesn't work, and shows it must be adapted to fit reality. The argument in the post was 'it doesn't work for viruses' when in reality, as other sources note, it's rigid application can't always be accomplished (e.g., Postulate 1 - testing everyone who DOESN"T have the disease to prove they don't have the virus is not possible).
Why didn't anyone tell the NIH that Koch's Postulate doesn't work on viruses before they used it to identify the SARS virus, or the other viruses in the search results I found?
I checked google and found instances of the principle of isolating a virus in order to prove it was the cause of illness, and I also found that some definitions for Koch's Postulate specify microbes.
According to the OP article, the germ theory debate actually started in the 1800s; my first encounter with the battle over germ theory was in the 1980s, and it rarely bobs to the surface; it's the classic forbidden topic (a '3rd rail'). Any doctor/researcher who 'goes there' will be treated worse than a doctor who tries to prescribe Ivermectin.
