The David Knight Show - INTERVIEW Andrew Kaufman, MD - Real Virus or Computer Model?

Episode Date: September 14, 2023

The pandemic is not based on science, but circular logic about contagious disease, viruses, and vaccines.Dr. Andrew Kaufman MD, AndrewKaufmanMD.com, joins to talk about the assumptions inherent in the computer models, PCR tests, and variants used to control the publicFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silverFor 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to TrendsJournal.com and enter the code KNIGHTBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

Have you received a red light or speed camera violation in the mail? Vehicle owners can pay or dispute online. Learn more at toronto.ca.aps Happiness. We all know what it feels like. But sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough, a new podcast from The Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that?

Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness, we'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find happy enough wherever you listen to podcasts. All right. It is a real honor to have with us Dr. Andrew Kaufman. He is, among other things, a forensic psychiatrist. And I've said for the longest time, the only science really going on here is behavioral psychology. He got his psychiatric training at Duke University Medical Center.

He also has a BS from MIT in molecular biology. And so we're going to tap into that primarily today, his background in biology. He says he's been qualified as an expert witness in local, state, and federal courts. I've held leadership positions in academic medicine and professional organizations. He ran a startup company to develop a medical device that he invented and patented. So it's great to have on with us now Dr. Andrew Kaufman. Thank you for joining us, sir. Oh, it's a pleasure to be here david uh one of the things that i wanted to talk to you about which i

think is very very important and i've not really talked about this at all and that is the difference between their models and having anything that has been isolated talk to us a little bit about that what is involved with that because we just as a background i'll just interject this you know people have always heard about in vitro right that means in the glass you've heard about in vitro fertilization but then they look at effects of things as they do an experiment in a petri dish and then they also look uh hopefully at what happens in living bodies that's in vivo but now we have what they call um i think it's in silico or something like that where they do the models computer models and they don't bother to do any other stuff it's their models and of course it was their models that got us into this lockdown

march the 13th 2020 uh but let's talk a little bit about that models versus actually having some kind of an isolated pathogen tell us a little bit about that well let me first say that um i really appreciate that you're bringing up this topic um at this point because it it's really imperative to understand uh the truth about infectious disease in order to prepare yourself to deal with uh you know whatever may come in the future, because we know that this program will run again. And you've hit the nail on the head with the idea of models, or I call them simulations. And there's really two parallel avenues of research in virology where they do simulations. So one is with the physical laboratory experiments that are in vitro, like you described, in a dish in the laboratory

with a lot of artificial ingredients and conditions. And then with respect to the genetic sequences or the so-called viral genome, and this is how the variants, by the way, are identified is purely by a computer model of the little genetic fragments of unknown origin. So I could explain these two separately. The physical laboratory experiments are a little bit more straightforward, so let me start there. And it's important to begin with definitions because the mainstream, or if you look in a typical biology or microbiology textbook, they'll have a specific definition of viruses. And it describes them as particles that are made of certain materials that they generally

have a protein coat or shell and inside they contain proteins and genetic material and that they are what's called obligate intracellular parasites in other words they can't reproduce on their own, but they allegedly invade host cells, which would be like our cells if we got sick with a virus. Inside our cells, they use our own machinery to make copies of themselves. Then they would explode out and those particles would spread around and penetrate other cells and do the same thing. And that's how we're told they cause disease. So that's the definition of a virus. Now, originally, when the word virus was used as a hypothesis to explain illness in medicine,

it didn't have that definition. At that time, it was just thought to be a poison. In fact, the word virus comes from the Latin meaning poison, or it was used to describe things like snake venom back in antiquity. But in the modern era, like around the turn of the 20th century, when there were experiments with tobacco mosaic virus, which is not a virus. At the time, the theory or hypothesis was that it was a toxic protein, perhaps that could reproduce itself or amplify itself. But they had no idea about particles. When the electron microscope was invented in the late 1930s, that's when scientists actually started looking at diseased tissue for illnesses that they couldn't explain otherwise. Like, in other words, they didn't find bacteria there. And they suspected there was some small poison or particle like that they called the virus at the time. And they began looking at diseased tissue.

At BetMGM, Ontario's best casino action is just a click away. Play thrilling games like Premium Blackjack Pro, the dazzling MGM Grand Emerald Knights, or try to score in Gretzky Goal Lucky Tap. It's all here at BetMGM. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor. Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Happiness. We all know what it feels like. But sometimes it doesn't come easy. I'm Garvey Bailey, the host of Happy Enough,

a new podcast from the Globe and Mail about our pursuit of happiness. We know people want to live more fulfilling and positive lives, but how do we actually do that? Is there a happiness code to crack? From our relationship with technology to whether money can really buy you happiness. We'll hear from both real people and experts to demystify this thing we're all searching for, and hopefully find ways to be happy enough. You can find Happy Enough wherever you listen to podcasts. But they couldn't find any particles that represented a single thing. They just found essentially breakdown products of our own cells and tissues.

And now it's well characterized that when our cells or any other animal cells are damaged, that they form little particles. Kind of like if your house got hit by a tree in a hurricane and you had to clean up the mess, you would take all of the destroyed materials and put them in plastic bags. And each plastic bag would be like a separate compartment, and that's a neat way to dispose of the trash without getting the contents everywhere. And our bodies do the same thing.

So what happened was that even though they were unable to find these particles or have a clear theory about viruses, they already had been making vaccines. And they were convinced themselves that they were growing viruses in a cell culture when they made these vaccines, even though they had no evidence of that. In other words, they never identified the actual virus in there conclusively. They just assumed that it was always in there. And there was a problem, though, because they thought that they had to use the type of cells that are infected. So for example, in polio, it's a disease of the spinal cord. So they would thought that to grow the polio virus, which they never showed to exist, that

they would have to use cultures of spinal cord cells. And those are very, very difficult to grow in the laboratory. So a scientist named John Enders got an idea that what if we tried using cells that are easy to grow in the laboratory, and the cells he chose were fetal stem cells, so in other words, from an aborted fetus, the stem cells which grow grow very readily in the laboratory and they stay alive pretty much forever. He took ground up spinal cords from children who died of polio and added them to fetal cell cultures and claimed that this was growing the virus successfully and used it to manufacture vaccines and actually won a Nobel Prize. And after that process was complete, he applied the same kind of process to study measles in a famous paper in 1954. And in that paper, he did not actually claim that the experiment where he drew,

grew a cell culture of foreign cells in that experiment, he is monkey kidney cells that were genetically modified in a commercially available cell line. So any laboratory around the world could buy these cells and do this experiment. And he added secretions from measles patients and put some antibiotics in the Petri dish as well. And some of those cultures ended up showing some damage to the cells, which he called cytopathic effects or CPEs. And he also actually did a culture where he did not add anything from a measles patient and got the same result, damage to the culture and CPEs. And even in the paper that was published, he stated that there must be other factors in the experiment that caused the CPE in that control experiment. And he didn't make any claims that that experiment proved the existence of measles. In fact, he said that what happens in vitro, just like you mentioned in a laboratory,

does not inform us about what's happening in the body. Oh, that's not science then. Yeah. Well, it is, I would call it observation, because you're right. The scientific method showed that those cytopathic effects were due to the experiment and not due to the measles, because they occurred when no measles was in the sample. But there perhaps are still things that could be learned if there really was a virus in that experiment. It's just that they never showed one. But what happened after that is that other scientists used that procedure and started claiming that it showed a new virus, that it discovered a new virus if there were cytopathic effects. And they ignored the control experiment where there was no virus,

or they didn't ignore it exactly, but in their experiments, they left that part out. So in other words, they didn't do control experiments, so it was not scientific. They also didn't have an independent variable because they just added body fluids or tissues that were diseased to the experiment. They never separated out a virus from those body fluids or tissues because when they looked

for that in the past, they were never able to find it. That's amazing. But essentially what's happening is that if someone is sick and let's say that it actually was due to a virus, then essentially that person's body would be the cell culture for that virus to reproduce. And it should be very easy to simply take out that part of the body and find tons of virus because it's been reproducing. If it didn't reproduce and spread around, it couldn't make you sick. So in other words, to do that experiment, it would be very easy and should be, you know, readily show the

presence of this invasive particle. But those experiments, when they were done, didn't show that. And now they're not no longer done because they have this other simulation in the laboratory where and it's been shown that you can get the same results without adding any biological material at all you just put in the antibiotics and the cell culture medium with reduced nutrition which is the same protocol they use and you can get cytopathic effects. Wow. So this Dr. Kaufman in a sense of, you know, the subatomic more models,

you know, and, um, and so we've had the, the Neil's Neil Boers model of the atom. And then we moved on to quantum mechanics and these are abstractions that, that people, they make some observations and they say,

well, you know, if, um, if this were true, cause they can't see it, you know, that's the key thing. They can't observe a virus there. And so they're coming up with these abstractions to try to describe what is there at a subatomic level. Is that accurate or would you disagree with that? Is that an abstraction? No, no, no. They used to try to figure out what is going on with disease transmission, but they can't really see it or prove it, right? Yeah, so I think you're on the right track. or so-called science and technology is that sometimes we can make observations about things

and we can describe them so well that we can predict the behavior of things in the future. And I think a great example of this is with respect to Isaac Newton and gravity. So, you know, as the story goes, Newton observed an apple falling to the ground and then he began to measure things and observe things carefully. And then he was able to come up with an equation that accurately described and predicted how fast the apple would fall to the ground. And then he saw that other things also fall at the same rate of acceleration, right? And that's how we got the acceleration due to gravity. So we can do experiments where we drop things and we can

plug in the numbers to the equation and we can get pretty accurate predictions about what happens when we drop that thing. However, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what makes it drop. So in other words, the cause, why is it dropping? The equation doesn't speak to that. Now, they invented the word gravity to describe that, but no one could show what gravity was. And it was assumed to be a force all of these years, right? But then in the last 10 years, through some crazy experiments

done with satellites, now the scientists claim that it's not a force, that it's a disruption of the space-time continuum. And I don't think they can really prove that either. I think that's just another hypothesis, right? But the equations that I described earlier are still useful because we can predict behavior. So in chemistry, the model of the atom, it has never been directly observed. There's only inferential or circumstantial evidence from which one explanation has been put forth as the model of the atom, but there are many other explanations that could be put forth that would explain those experimental findings just as easily. Yeah. But based on how we look at the atom and the periodic table and the atomic numbers and such, we can use this arbitrary system of nomenclature and of rules and we can go to the laboratory

and we can synthesize chemicals and do chemical reactions that we can predict with some accuracy. So it's useful to have that system, but it really doesn't tell us the true nature of the atom or of matter. We only have one possible model for that, but we have no conclusive evidence. And it's a a similar the reason why is right that we don't have the ability to observe things at such a small scale that we can see what it's really made of yes or at least that's one hypothesis about why you know we don't know it exactly and so with with that because as we're talking about observation let's talk a little bit about the PCR thing, Kerry Maltz's PCR, because they talk about that incessantly as,

well, this is our observation. What are they really seeing with that? Have you received a red light or speed camera violation in the mail? Vehicle owners can pay or dispute online. Learn more at toronto.ca slash APS. Well, you've got to understand that if you want to identify a covariate, because really what we're talking about is something that represents something else, right? Like we have a fingerprint. A fingerprint is not a human being, but it's a part of a human being. And we know if we see a fingerprint, a fingerprint is not a human being, but it's a part of a human being. And we know if

we see a fingerprint, a human being has been there. But we can't identify the human being unless we already analyze their fingerprint and have something to match it to. So the PCR test, now it's not really a test per se. It's actually a manufacturing technology because it takes some starting material and makes more of that. It replicates it, right? Makes copies of it. So there's more quantity of that stuff. And that's really what it does. But it can only make these quantities of something that's a small piece of something.

And that piece of something would be a piece of genetic material, right? That is broken off a larger piece. So, in order to say that if we find this piece of genetic material, first we have to say, alright, we've identified the organism and we've characterized all the genetic material in this organism and we've compared it with all the genetic material of other organisms and we know this piece here is unique. It doesn't occur in any other part of nature and we know that it comes from this particular organism right and we can we can do this for humans or other organisms that

we've mapped their entire genome by like taking a cell from a human body mapping out you know every sequence of dna in the nucleus and the mitochondria and then you know putting those all in a database and that that's been done took a long time but it's been done so if you were to develop a genetic test for a piece of the genetic material of a virus first you would have to discover the virus you'd have to extract the genetic material from it and sequence it in its entirety, then compare it to all the other known sequences and pick out a fragment of it that's unique. And then you could develop a test and then you'd have to validate it by comparing it

to, you know, so in other words, you would have, let's say, 100 people that were sick, and you would demonstrate the virus in those people through being able to purify it out and visualize it from those people. Then you would know out of the 100 people how many have the virus and don't, and then you would do this proposed test for this genetic fragment, and you would get the results and see how many times you found the unique fragment, and you would compare it to the people that actually whether they had the actual virus or not in their body. And if it matched up 100% of the time,

it would be an amazing test with a zero error rate. But in reality, there are no tests which are that good. And for example, if you were going to validate a pregnancy test, you would do the test and then you'd wait nine months and see if a baby came out. And if your test showed the presence of something and a baby came out at the end, you'd know it was good. Right. And you could even do this for fun with a pendulum. Like, you know, if the pendulum swings, you know, side to side or up and down, it could predict

pregnancy and you could test it by just waiting nine months and see if it's accurate. And that's called validation. And it's never been done with the PCR test for this alleged virus or for any other alleged virus. So there's even if it was a good test in detecting this particular genetic fragment, there's no way to know if this genetic fragment actually came from a virus or not. We don't know the origin of it. They've never taken this virus and pulled the genetic material out of it to determine what sequences are in it because they've never actually found the particle now there are pictures where they point to something and say that's the particle but they don't do any experiment or test to demonstrate that that particle has any of the properties of a virus so we saw this uh back fauci's uh first pcr game uh was still when um carrie was

still alive carrie mollis is still alive and he said you can't prove that there's that hiv is the cause of age using my test and he had this fight with him all that time but of course just before this thing rolled out uh he died uh car Mullis died a few months before Fauci rolled this stuff out. I've always found that fascinating, the fact that even though he was the one who invented it and even though he won a Nobel Prize for it, he could not ever get and try it over and over again to set up something where he was going to debate Fauci. Fauci was always able to avoid that, always able to keep the spotlight on himself and never have to explain what the person who invented the test said was a misuse of his test. to gain would have had nothing to gain from debating kerry mollis because uh he knew that he was you know exploiting this technology for uh commercial gain yes that's right it's always a key

when somebody doesn't want to show you their data and they don't want to have a debate it always tells you something about their confidence level of what they're telling everybody but the guy was an amazing or is even still as he's still doing it, an amazing con man. And so we have this PCR test. As you pointed out, we don't really know when they're testing for something. We don't really know. Well, is that connected to what we're seeing here? Right. Is that, that's so they're, they're magnifying this with their cycle threshold of 40. They're magnifying it over a trillion times. But what are they even looking for? Is there any connection between what they're looking for and a disease?

They're shutting people down who have no symptoms, right? Yeah, you're right. They've never established a connection. In fact, the CDC described how they validated the PCR test. And what they did is they made a synthetic strand of genetic material that matched the one that the test was designed for, and they made up solutions of different concentrations, and they put it through the PCR.

So all they showed was that you can use this test and amplify a man-made piece of genetic material. Had nothing to do with a virus or any sick patients at all. They weren't even part of the experiment. But the reason I think that PCR is the preferred choice for these tests is, you know, one, because it can be very simply modified to any sequence. So it's already there. It's already a protocol and even have machines that have automated protocols that run this. You put the sample and add the ingredients and it does everything if you program it correctly. So it take, you could So all you do is put in a different sequence and make a different primer, and then you can adapt it to any sequence that you say is from anything with no R&D needed.

So it's very convenient. And then the other thing is that there are many parameters that you can adjust to a PCR protocol to change the percent of results that are positive or negative. So if you want to tweak the parameters such that 80% of samples come back positive, you can do that. If you want to make it 10%, you can do that. So in other words, by manipulating it, you could give the appearance that there was a surge of cases or that there was an improvement in the number of cases. When you say tweaking it, is that something that's different from the cycle threshold? How many times they go through and double it? Well, the cycle threshold is only one way that you can manipulate the outcome so you certainly that is a very potent way because

each time you do one one cycle means that you're making one copy of your starting sample so if you start out with just one copy of this specific genetic sequence, after doing one cycle, you'll end up with two copies. And after the second cycle, you'll go from two to four. So each time it doubles. Now, each time that you double, there are errors that occur. So it doesn't copy each piece perfectly. It copies it perfectly some of the time and then also makes some errors. Like think about it, if you were doing this with rewriting a sentence, someone originally wrote

the sentence and then you have to copy the sentence 100 times, one of those times you might substitute an E for an A in there. And then that error might get perpetuated because if you copy that E correctly, it's still a mistake from the original, right? It didn't exist in the original. And that's what happens as you do more and more copies. And the cycle threshold is generally, the guidelines say it should be under 20. So under 20 doublings to get accurate results without introducing so much error that you could essentially get anything in your final sample because the mistakes multiply and add up over time. Like you get a mistake here, then there was a mistake in the mistake and a mistake in the mistake in this mistake, and you get something that is totally different. It was never in your sample to start

with. So that's one way you can fudge the results. The other way is that you set an arbitrary threshold of how much material you made that you call positive. So in other words, there could be 10 picograms of it in your 40th cycle, and you call that a positive, or it could be 100 picograms that you call positive. And it's totally arbitrary where you set that threshold of positive and negative. It's not like an on-off switch. It's more like a dial, and you just pick a point in the dial that's positive and negative. It's not like an on-off switch. It's like a dial, and you just pick a point in the dial that's positive and negative. It's kind of like asking the question, at what temperature does it go from cold to hot?

Right? You can make one up, but there's no real answer. And so that changes it. And then the other thing is that you typically dilute your sample before you put it into the PCR machine. So depending on how much you dilute your sample, if you dilute it more, then there'll be less in the final results and more likely a negative result. And if you dilute it less, there'll be more in your starting sample and more likely a positive result. So by adjusting those parameters, you could easily change the number of positive results you get when you apply it to a population of samples. Wow. got a model and an abstraction and then they level uh you know you look at the pcr tests and all the different ways that you can uh define what you're looking for and how much you can magnify it and the errors that are induced into that and then they come up with a variance now

since we don't have anything that's tied to something that is absolutely real it's kind of an abstraction model as you point out it's a digital simulation what does any of this model this any of this variant stuff mean uh when they when they pull right well now this uh this gets into um the whole area of the genome um sequencing and now you know earlier i kind of described how we got the human genome, right? That we took the genetic material, the DNA out of human cells, out of their nuclei and mitochondria, and then we sequenced that genetic material and that genetic material only, right? We started with just human cells. Now, since they've never actually found a virus or separated it and purified it, so you just have a test tube with only virus particles,

they were never able to take the genetic material out of it. So what they do is they take the tissue or the fluid from a sick person, and they generally, like so with COVID, for example, the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, they did this with just one single patient. And of course, they said that they had the virus because of a PCR test, which was developed without ever finding the virus in the first place. So it's a circular reasoning, right? Why is the virus in there? Well, we assume the virus is in there.

We assume that if the virus is in there, the PCR will be positive. So we do the PCR and it's positive. So that means the virus is in there, even though we never demonstrated it, right? And then that means that the genetic material from the virus is also in there. And so what they do is they take that fluid and they pull out every fragment of genetic material that's in there, but they don't know where any of those fragments are from. Like they assume that some of them are from a virus. They know that some of them must be from the human, but they don't know where else they might come from because we have bacteria in us, we have fungi, we have parasites.

Even if just if we breathe in the air there's genetic material in the air and so like if you take fluid out of the lungs whatever you just breathed in in the last half hour is going to be in that sample so they have this mixture of unknown material and they're all little fragments and you know little fragments are uh redundant because because there's only four letters, right? So there's only so many 10-letter words you can make with four letters. And so when you have small fragments, they're present everywhere in nature, like every organism has it because you've got trillions or quadrillions of these letters in your vocabulary, So they make every 10-letter word there is in there, right? So they're not specific. But they sequence all these little fragments. And then this is where

the computer simulation comes in. They put in all that data into the computer. And the computer tries to, out of nothing, put together a genome that is from this virus that they've never shown to be in the experiment. And it comes up with like a million solutions. In fact, for the SARS-CoV-2 experiment, they actually used two separate computer programs because they couldn't trust that one would give them the answer they wanted. And between those two programs, there were over a million results of possible theoretical computer simulation genomes in that sample. And they basically also had an assumption that the length of the genome would be around either 20,000 or 30,000 bases long.

So out of the million solutions, there was some solutions that were around that length, and they just picked the longest one of those. I thought the epidemiological models were bad enough. This is way, way beyond all the stuff that was done by the Imperial College of London. It truly is amazing. It really is. It truly is amazing. It really is. It really is amazing. And the thing is that so few people can read these papers

and understand what they're doing or take the time to read them that no one knows they're doing this little magic trick where they're giving you a computer-generated result, not something that's in nature. Wow. And so then they have an even better trick. generated result, not something that's in nature. And so then they have an even better trick. So once they basically published that and said, boom, this is the genome of SARS-CoV-2,

and they entered it in the database that anyone can look at in the world, then the companies that make the technology that does this kind of sequencing, it's called next generation sequencing, and it's a very big business. They developed a protocol using PCR where you could essentially apply the template of that genome and find it in any other sample. So it's kind of like a rigged game because the PCR primers make up more than half of the entire genome. And then they do that, and it's like a recipe that labs around the world can just follow this procedure, you know, step one, step two, step three, and at the end, they get this result. And then the result is supposed to be, represent the genome of the virus in their patient sample. And the thing is,

they could never replicate the exact findings. So every time they did this, they didn't get the same exact genome that they found in the first experiment because it wasn't real. So they couldn't get the same exact genome that they found in the first experiment because it wasn't real so they couldn't get the same results from from repeating the experiment in fact that's one of the the scientific principles that invalidates the results if you can't repeat the experiment and get the same results then the original experiment is flawed. But instead of interpreting it the scientific way like that, they make up the story that the virus mutated, and our results are close but not exactly the same,

so we have a genetic mutated version of the virus, and we'll call that a variant. Wow. Wow. And how many variants have they uh invented here there have been millions millions that they've invented by this and then you know the public health agencies like the cdc they then make a classification of these variants as being dangerous or threatening or not. And the way they do this is even more ridiculous because they take these computer simulated

sequences and for like the spike protein gene, for example, the S gene, because they say that part of this sequence makes the spike protein, which has also never been shown to come from nature. And then they make a synthetic sequence of the spike protein gene that they say is from this new variant, and they transfect it into a bacterial cell culture. And so the bacterial cells make this gene for the spike protein supposedly. And then they add antibodies to the Petri dish that are supposed to be the antibodies that protect us from the infection,

but there's never been any studies that prove that. And based on how the antibodies bind with the infection, but there's never been any studies that prove that. And based on how the antibodies bind with the bacteria, they make a judgment of how dangerous this virus is. Wow. Wow. So they don't follow the people who had this sequence in their sample and say, how do they do? Yeah, exactly. do yeah exactly they they do this once again another laboratory simulation in vitro without

anything resembling nature in the experiment but then they draw conclusions and then they make policy based on on those experiments wow and so we have their existing vaccines which we don't see anybody getting any better from. And you still have people who are testing positive for it. Let me ask you this. I've always wondered if, since they're coming up with a sequence and telling people, this is what you're going to test for, and then saying, you know, that there's, you know, we're going to create this sequence as part of our vaccine.

I think we're going to get your body to create this sequence as part of our vaccine. I think we're going to get your body to create this. Are they also injecting what they're looking for to some degree or the other? Is that something else that's another factor here besides all the magnification and all the rest of the things that they can do? Are they actually, what they're injecting people with, is that another piece of circular logic

that they're going to inject you with something that they're going to look at to see if they can find that? Well, there are many logical errors in the approach with these alleged vaccines. And, you know, obviously, if you haven't proven that there's a microorganism causing the disease, if you develop a therapeutic based on getting rid of a microorganism, it couldn't possibly be successful. In order to develop a way to help address a problem, you have to know what's causing the problem. Right.

So there's no way a vaccine could be useful. And also, because these vaccines were allowed to be sold, right? They were never approved, or at least only until after the pandemic, some of them might've gotten approval from an official government body, but they were allowed to be sold under an emergency exception. Right. Right. EUA is what it's called, Emergency Use Authorization in the United States. It has sold under an emergency exception. EUA is what it's called, Emergency Use Authorization in the United States.

It has different names in other countries. But that's all over the world. That's the only way it could be used. And that allows the manufacturer to change the ingredients and to not disclose things because it's a work in progress. And it's like the emergency is so dire that we'll take the risk. That's what it states in the law, essentially.

So they didn't test properly to even know what exactly these shots do to people. They didn't even test to say, well, if we give it to people, can we detect this spike protein in their body? They didn't even test to say well if we give it to people can we detect this spike protein in their body they didn't do that research there have been a couple of small studies that independent researchers have tried to look at that after the fact but the the manufacturer like that's the most basic thing you know you design this thing it's supposed to make a protein in the recipient and then you never test for that protein in the recipient. We've had some information come out, would you agree with it or not, that in some of the animal tests, they found a concentration of the spike proteins in ovaries and in the spleen. Would you disagree with that, that they did not find the spike protein?

Yeah, well, those were not spike proteins. Those were the lipid nanoparticles. So they did what they call, you know, pharmacokinetic studies, which is, you know, required for any pharmaceutical. And that's basically what does your body do to this drug or substance when you put it in there right does it stay around in the body does it go in the urine does it go in the stool does the liver processes those kind of questions so the i believe it was pfizer released a document in japan that described the pharmacokinetic studies of the lipid nanoparticles.

Now, that's the little containers that allegedly contain the mRNA. Okay. And those lipid nanoparticles were shown to distribute to all locations in the body, but they were highly concentrated, as you pointed out, in the genital regions, especially the female genitals, like the uterus, the ovaries, and also in the brain tissue and in several other organs. So that was found. So if there was actually mRNA that could cause your cells to make spike protein, it would be delivered to all those locations in your body. But they did not do experiments where they, you know,

they measured spike protein in those organs that I'm aware of. I see. Okay. Well, that's interesting because that's, I've seen it reported that way, but they're looking at the lipid nanoparticles. And what do we know about the lipid nanoparticles and their health effects well we know they're they're fairly toxic there are toxicology studies looking at these things and they could also be called hydrogels by the way that's a different technological name for them um but yeah these these things are definitely not good for us um but, you know, we don't know the, each version of it is slightly different. It's a proprietary chemical. So, you know, the version of it that's in the current vaccines, you know, that hasn't been tested directly that I'm aware of, but in general,

there's a significant toxicity just from these lipid nanoparticles themselves. Well, it certainly is amazing. And of course, we know that there's something up with this. As you know, when you see people, members of the European Parliament, and say, well, we want to see the contract and other things like this. And they get nothing but redacted documents back. We know that Pfizer was leaning on various countries who have gone public with the fact that they wanted additional protection over and above

what they would have normally had with an emergency experimental vaccine. They wanted protection about negligence and manufacturing and all the rest of this stuff. And they even wanted to have assets that were outside of that country that they would be able to get to. So there's just all these different smoking guns, but that's a whole nother level. And of course, what you're talking about here also gets back to the baseline understanding of what is a virus and what is a vaccine. And these are abstractions.

I've had a lot of people who have sent me information in the past. I've never gotten into it that much. I just looked at it and it's like, you know, that may not actually be an accurate model. And certainly from the way that you're describing it, it looks like an endless loop of circular logic that is just going around and around again. And what comes out at the end of that is a big pile of money, I guess, is what we get out of that circular logic that is just going around and around again. And what comes out of the end of that is a big pile of money, I guess, is what we get out of that circular logic. Well, I mean, even before COVID, vaccines were a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States.

I mean, really second to cancer treatment. But the COVID vaccines were the best selling drugs ever in the history of the pharmaceutical industry. So this was a huge windfall and all the companies that made testing kits as well, huge, huge windfall. People even made money all sorts of ways. They bought cheap masks and other PPE from China and resold it, doubling and tripling the price. It was a real boon for anyone who wanted to corrupt themselves and join on the medical bandwagon of medical fraud to bring that about. So this is not going to stop because these profits are too sweet to pass up for that industry. And I'm sure what you were talking about with contracts and such,

all the governments entered into those contracts voluntarily. They even provided blanket immunity from product liability for the manufacturers. Really, they are at fault just as much as the drug companies for perpetrating this poison injections upon us and cause all of the morbidity and mortality that resulted. And you know, the vaccine industry recognized decades ago that their products were toxic and because they were getting sued and they, they were getting sued and losing so much that vaccines were not profitable. And so they basically told the government, they gave them an ultimatum. They said, if you want us to keep making vaccines, you have to take away our liability.

Yeah. And it's unprecedented. There's no other product manufacturer that is free from product liability. If I manufacture a gas fireplace and it explodes and kills you and your family, I have to pay. But if I manufacture a vaccine and it kills you and your family, I just keep selling it to more people. And that's what has resulted. And of course, they find more and more profitable ways over time, and they keep expanding the number of vaccines, the vaccine recommendations in their government partnerships, et cetera, et cetera. And even if you don't want to question the validity of germ theory as a cause of disease, which is clearly not scientifically proven, you can just look at the actual data.

So for example, for every illness that was said to have disappeared because of vaccines, if you go and look at the number of cases year by year and look out when the vaccine was first invented and when people actually took the vaccine, you'll see that the disease went away first and then the vaccine came. And that's in every situation that there's data available for. You can find that. And of course, also the way that they test and approve new vaccines is not the way you would think at all. So for example, if I was going to, if I invented a new measles vaccine and needed, wanted to get approval for it, you would think that I would have to give it to like a thousand kids and then have a thousand kids I don't give

it to and follow all of them, you know, through age 10 and see how many get measles in the group that got the shot and how many got measles in the group that didn't, and then compare it and see if it really prevented measles. But those experiments have never, ever been done with any vaccine. Wow. And that's what we've been told that they used to do, that they used to have, you know, and I've talked about this. I said, look at what they used to do. And Fauci said, yeah, we're going to get rid of this decade-long protocol.

You know, they would have their phase one, which they would have a small group of volunteers and they would look for toxicity, they would say. And then they would expand it to phase two, and they would have people who, you know, if it was a therapeutic, somebody who actually has a condition, so they'd see if it worked, and then expand it in phase three. But for vaccines, they would give it to a bunch of people in phase two and then let them circulate around for a long period of time and say,

well, how many people came down with the disease that we were vaccinating for in our control group that wasn't vaccinated or had a placebo versus the other one? And then with phase three, they would expand it. That's what we were always told. And that would be a 10-year protocol. That's right. So that's not what they were doing then, right? That's not what they do.

So they still have the same process, but the experiment they did was not looking to see if the disease developed. And if you were going to do that, you'd have to conduct the trial for a substantial length of time, right? Because many of those illnesses, the incidence is very low. You might even need a very large group of people to test it in. But what they do is that they give it to experimental subjects, and then a week later or two weeks later, they test their blood for antibodies. And if they have the antibodies that they designate as meaning immunity from that disease they say the vaccine's good yeah the only problem is is that they've never demonstrated that those antibodies actually mean

anything they're only theoretical and and i heard that i remember when facho was talking about that and saying yeah we know this works because we observe the antibodies with this COVID thing. I was under the impression that they had always been doing it, you know, if I could 10 year period or something like that, and that they just cut that off and then looked for the antibodies with this particular one. But you're saying they've been doing it that way for a long time. Yeah. Yeah. As I mean, for as long as I can can remember for as long as, you know, the oldest, uh, clinical trial I've ever seen use that methodology.

Wow. Wow. So, um, we've now gotten to the point where they can just invent out of thin air, not just viruses, but variants of viruses. Uh, they can go in and who knows if they've, they can say now I've got a new and improved vaccine. We don't know if they even bothered to change it, you know, just a slap, a new label on it. Like you used to see with the, uh,

uh, you know, particular, uh, washing machine soap, you know, it's, it's new and improved.

How? I don't know how it's any different from the other one, but you know, it's got, it's got sunlight in it or something. Solium is that's one of the, well, they,

you know, look, they, they do make new recipes. And the reason why, you know, they they do make new recipes and the reason why you know this is because there are different patterns of toxicity yes um right so i mean for example with the the flu vaccines uh what we saw was mostly neurologic issues like guillain-barre which is a type of uh paralysis um with hepatitis b, we've seen sudden death and encephalitis.

With the COVID vaccines, we've seen also sudden death, but we've also seen blood clots. We've also seen myocarditis, and? And that's pretty specific, right? No other vaccines that I know of are associated with myocarditis and that's a very strong connection. And even the mainstream admits to that. They downplay it a lot, but they admit to it. And then you've also had neurologic conditions, including seizures develop as well as other paralytic events like Bell's palsy.

So, you know, maybe they took some of the stuff that was in the flu shot, which caused that neurological toxicity, but then there clearly are novel patterns. So there must be, you know, different things in there that cause different toxicities to develop in the recipients. And that's a clue, you know, that they're using a unique recipe, but it doesn't tell us what exactly is in it. Right. And also we know that. So let me ask you, have we seen different pathologies from these supposedly reworked COVID vaccines

that are supposed to address these different variants? Because, you know, like you're talking about, we had different neurological diseases. I remember pandemrics that Fauci and Slaoui did, and they had narcolepsy and catalepsy. It was very well documented in some Scandinavian countries for young kids. But have we seen that, you know, from the injection for one variant or the other? They've now said, oh, we've got a new vaccine that's coming out. But they've done that already, right, for the supposedly reformulated COVID vaccines. Have we seen different pathologies with that?

Right. Well, it's really difficult to tell because a lot of this information is suppressed. True. And I haven't looked at it this recently myself, but certainly one could go to the database in your country and look at the reports and see if knowing the date when they changed to a different formulation, you know, was there any difference in the pattern? And it'll, it'll come out eventually if there is.

Um, but it is very difficult to get the stuff out of these databases out of VAERS and out of DMEDS and all the rest of this stuff. And then they play games with it. Let me ask you this, while we're talking about the different, um, uh, labs and other things like that, and we're talking about this abstraction one of the things that things that's been a real uh stickler with me i hate to see the people who are going back and and making a big issue out of the wuhan lab i see that as misdirection how do you see that as people talking about um the wuhan lab and and focusing on that and focusing on China. Do you see that as a misdirection? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, I don't mean to deny that, you know, there are government

scientists who are doing all sorts of unscrupulous things. I'm sure that happens all the time. Yeah. And we did have cases of that, especially in 2014. And they were, they were doing things with known pathogens that were bacteriological and stuff and bringing them in and losing track of them, you know, letting them escape the lab. And so, you know, we did have a history of that. But with this particular thing with the Wuhan lab and with COVID specifically, now you've got so many people who are now making that the focus rather than the vaccine. And that's the thing that really bothers me. Yeah, well, I because there there's simply no evidence to support it and you know the only credible evidence of something like that would be

evidence that it there actually affected people in the world you know what but where where is the experiment showing that there's some manufactured you know bioweapon you know the other thing that's really important about this is that you know because if you if you drill down and look at the evidence you'll see that you know disease-causing viruses don't exist in nature so if they don't exist in nature then how can you make a synthetic version of one right you can't um right right? So you'd have to basically have a completely novel technology. And in addition, there's no natural model for contagion. We all grow up and we're told that diseases are contagious and it can pass from person to person. But that's been tested many, many times in very well done scientific experiments

with control groups and everything. And they've never ever demonstrated even a single case where a disease was transmitted from one person to another. So if there's no model for that in nature, then you can't, you know, how do you make a technology do that it's it's very very challenging like you know i i spent some time thinking about this and the only thing i could come up with would be making some kind of like robotic devices or nanobots that you know could go and inject things into you or get things in your body in some other way. Wow. But I don't see how you could make it spread from person to person. Yeah. It is amazing to see all the different circular logic, as you pointed out, and how this is

a model abstraction. And we seem to be rapidly moving in that direction in so many different ways, whether you're talking about this or, you know, I guess this is kind of like the chat GPT of medicine. Well, all of the climate arguments about climate catastrophe are all also based on computer models. And you can go back in time to the earlier models and then see what really happened and see how they were totally wrong every single time. That's right. And they don't have a database. I agree. And they don't have a database that is

consistent and reliable for comparison of warming. But I remember it was just, I think it was last year, and it made headlines. Oh, look, the temperature just jumped by 40 degrees on the Arctic and the Antarctic. And then it went back to normal and people looked at what is going on. They said, well, we don't actually have any thermometers up there. We've got computer models and the computer models flaked out on us. And so that's a really, that's really key. People don't realize how much of what we think is observational science is done with computer models and garbage in garbage out, you know, and,. You know, and, you know, that was one glimpse that we had of the climate panic.

But as your presentation points out, it truly is amazing what we're seeing with all of this medical stuff and very alarming because it's being used for political purposes and to lock us down, as the climate stuff is as as well isn't it well there you know are many um so if you're going to truly be a scientist and investigate nature and try to understand how nature works right and and illness is part of nature we can all observe illness right i'm not denying that we get sick. That's obvious. But in order to approach that, it's kind of a two-part pursuit. The first part is we have to come up with some idea about how it works in the first part. And then the second part is we can design a scientific experiment to test that idea. But people confuse these two, and they think the first part where you just observe and come up with

an idea about a hypothesis, a guess, a reasoned guess about what causes the phenomenon. So epidemiology, which you mentioned earlier, right? Now that is what public health departments do. And there are, you know, academic departments at universities that study public health. They apply statistics. And it has the air of being scientific, but it's purely observation. Because all they're doing is they're observing people and they're saying, some people are sick, some people are healthy, some people die. What age do they die? Do more people die this year than last year?

Why is that? What's causing more people to die? That's epidemiology. You can't draw any conclusions about what's causing changes in people's health from epidemiology at all. All you can do is you can observe phenomena and say, oh my gosh, in Seattle last year, twice as many people had lung cancer than in Detroit last year. And you'd be like, oh my God, maybe there's something in Seattle causing people to develop lung cancer. And then you can say, all right, I'm going to look further at that. And I find out that, oh, more people smoke in Seattle than in Detroit. There's more smog in Seattle than in Detroit. So I say, oh, could these things be the reason why there's more lung cancer? And then in order to determine that, I could go and take air samples of the smog and expose those to mice in a laboratory and to have another group of mice that don't get exposed

and say, do any of the mice develop lung cancer? Then I can know that those substances may have caused the lung cancer, but that's a scientific experiment, right? And not the epidemiology. So we confuse the observation with understanding and a computer simulation is only a way of observing and coming up with hypotheses. And sometimes they can be ridiculous because you can fudge computer models to get almost any result that you want, but it can be useful. If you don't know where to go, you make a model and then you come up with some hypotheses, then you can do an experiment and see if that's really true. But never substitute for a real life measurement i understand so uh yeah when we see a a cluster of a particular type of disease or something like that again we can identify that

but it's a another issue in terms of actually identifying uh the cause of that and that's what that's where the real uh the question comes in thank you so much for joining us, sir. And how can people best find you? Where can they find you? Yeah, please go to my website, andrewkaufmanmd.com. That's K-A-U-F-M-A-N. And you'll be able to access everything there. Well, very interesting.

Thank you so much for your research. And it's been a pleasure having you on. And let me just thank uh on rock fan thank you carious rex thank you very much and dystopian dissonant we will try to get john rapaport on i've had him on before haven't had him on since i've had my show we're trying to get in touch with him again thank you so much The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The David Knight Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.

Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science. Wear your mask. Take your vaccine. Don't ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.