Dr. Tom Cowan Insists We Show Him Covid-19 |472|

p.3-5: Discusses the free energy and entropy. Somehow he forgets to specify which free energy he is talking about. In thermodynamics there are two - Gibbs and Helmholtz free energies. Gibbs is more general as it incorporates the pressure and volume of the system. Both have -TS term (temperature times entropy). From my experience in chem systems, TS is quite small relative to say the enthalpy (go look at the phase transition data in a NIST online database). I am saying this because one needs to keep in mind relative importance of different processes, which he fails to demonstrate or cite others who demonstrate that the changes that he lists are significant or at least that they can be significant relative to the system at hand. Same with heat transfer (actually it is not that difficult, at least in the first approximation). We all know that different parts of our bodies could have quite different temperatures (think of your hands in cold weather) - yet, the system works fine. My point is what is he worried about, 0.1C difference, 10C difference? Why does he think it is important? BTW, it's his job to do it, not the "defending" side. He fails to support his concerns in this regard.

His concerns about differences in g's in a centrifuge is also a perfect example of a red herring. This stuff is known (apparently not to him, which casts quite a shadow on his credentials or state of mind), for example (see fig.7.1 with all the different radii there): https://www.biologydiscussion.com/m...fugation-technique-of-molecular-biology/26504

The rest of the text suffers from the same shortcomings. For example, he questions electron microscopy. He cites papers as late as 2010, but he is horribly outdated (yet more shadows on his abilities at the time of writing, he seems stuck in the 60s and 70s, I suppose his golden times). But fine, let's suppose EM is wrong. There are now optical techniques that can actually do things on nanoscales in vivo, i.e., not what he says is possible only with dead cells. See an abstract here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28924658/ An excerpt: "TED microscopy facilitates the visualization of the highly complex and dynamic morphology of neurons and glia cells deep inside living brain slices and in the intact brain in vivo". Note the "intact brain" part, it destroys Hillman's objections. And please don't try to say that this STED paper is outlier by some lying corrupt eggheads - Nature Methods is constantly filled with such various imaging techniques (look it up, at least the table of contents should be available).

He discusses some of the criticisms of his work, the only one coming close is: "Thirdly, it was asserted that the structures which I had characterised as artefacts (Table 2) had been demonstrated by several different microscopical procedures, which they believed represented different independent lines of evidence. My response was that the alleged structures were not seen in fresh unfixed tissue, but in dehydrated, shrunken, stained preparations, which was the source of all the artifacts." As I have shown above his assertion that it is all about dehydrated, etc. preparations, does not hold water.

And he does not talk anywhere about microbes or germ theory.

OK, I had more than enough of all these "experts". Unlike you, I do not need experts, I ask critical questions that are easily testable by a layman.

I do support everybody in their efforts to improve their "territory", but would like to caution from testing the "anti-germ" theory and its approaches (why wash hands? - the Contagion Myth) on themselves - you could become one of those "Darwin award" winners (no, I am not a Darwinist, but you sure know what that award means).
 
GeoDoorn to me; "Wrong. I actually studied to become a biochemist, but then switched fields, that's one. Second, in work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols, among other things. I told you that I can detect BS when it is there, such as in climate science. But unlike you, I have skills to separate valid things from BS. I asked quite a few questions and all I hear back is the same nonsense. Your argument about antibiotics is loughable, see above. And I have not seen anything better in any of your posts so far and I am afraid that's symptomatic."

You have not really addressed what I am talking about. And my commentary on antibiotics and bacteria is hardly laughable, it's not even that controversial (among the naturopathic school at least, unlike radical virus dissent. And on bacterial resistance to antibiotics not at all). You just bluff and just do not really understand what I write, because it goes against everything you have been taught. We are going along 2 different tracks and there is no common meeting ground really. You objected earlier, why do antibiotics work? You ignored the meaning of successful bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the literature on this topic alone is huge and goes back more than 6 decades (the terrain btw would include the mind-body system of the patient. But you won't know what I am getting at here). You don't get what the naturopathic school means by environment/terrain, as a whole. Obviously bacteria are still a big part of the problem with infections/bacterial diseases (being ASSOCIATIVE with the disease), hence the antibiotic treatments, I never denied that. I can keep repeating the point, but I think I expressed it well enough earlier. You didn't get the point I was making. So it's a waste of time arguing really. Albeit I appreciate your comments. You are trained to see it differently, so that's how it is.

You don't acknowledge bacterial resistance to antibiotics in any serious way and how this has been a big big problem in medicine, never mind the side-effects of antibiotics in patients which are often severe, in your postings. I cited Dubos, one of the great fathers of antibiotic research; so according to your uh logic, you imply that Dubos's later notions on antibiotics and their use in the war against bacterial infections/disease were laughable too (even as they were based on years of experience and research. Once again Dubos is one of the giant names in antibiotic breakthroughs). I realize you didn't get the point I was making (the point about bacteria and the terrain, it's more complex than you think). This is why you cannot get AIDS dissent or SARS-CoV-2 dissent, and why you clearly don't want to know. You don't get the meaning of antibiotic resistance by bacteria (you don't even acknowledge it in in your first knee-jerk commentary on antibiotics), the med profession is treating the surface issue... Yes it is necessary to treat the surface issue, of course, but it's still the surface, associative issue. It is not the underlying causative issue, even though GeoDoorn and others don't get what I am saying here.

You bring up anthrax, but how does anthrax thrive in nature? Sure we can and do culture the bacterium here. And various chemicals, UV, can destroy or reduce the virulence/multiplication of anthrax, and it can be modified artificially to be more virulent. So? UV has an effect on anthrax bacteria, yes. So? And antibiotics are prescribed to combat various bacterial ailments. So? The latter objection of yours follows the same kind of pattern as your UV and anthrax one. You are in both cases looking at the surface issue. It's part of your education. Not denying any of this, nobody does, but the anthrax bacteria are being cultured in a hospitable environment (to them), artificially. That is in culture, in vitro. By lab scientists. The bacteria are still dependent on the right artificially engineered environment to thrive and multiply (and nobody is denying how dangerous these bacteria are). A man-made environment is still an environment. An in vitro culture is still an environment. The cultured bacteria cannot exist without that just-so-right in vitro culture, the necessary nutrients, temperature, other factors. It's an environment. Even if a man-made one. Important to stress: how does anthrax thrive in nature? Your comments on anthrax tell me you don't get what the naturopathic school is saying here, you have to read their literature.

You studied biochemistry. So what? The Gangster Med Profession currently destroying the world with this covid mania (when not poisoning children with vaccines and killing people the world over with AIDS drugs, and so much more iatrogenic disasters) is made up of professionals with backgrounds in biochemistry, immunology, virology, plain med degrees etc. You know nothing of gangster medicine, and nothing of the dubious claims of virology (including blunders admitted by the orthodoxy, such as the discredited notion that retroviruses cause certain rare leukemias) and you don't appear to want to know. But hey one day maybe you will be more open minded here. I hope so.

Going by your condescending dismissal, typical, one would have no idea what I actually wrote, on HIV/AIDS, COVID-19 etc. And why the establishment here can't possibly admit to blundering. You can't even bother to check what AIDS dissidents and SARS-CoV-2 dissidents are saying in their own words. And what about the polio scandal? You don't know and you don't want to know. I give the links, the names, but you are not interested. So if you don't care for what they say, just dismiss it out of hand even as you have no idea what they are saying, it goes against your conditioning, why would anything I write here make a difference? GeoDoorn writes: "I have skills to separate valid things from BS." That's not a scientific point btw. It's just argument from personal conviction. And personal ego. There is no substance to it. It doesn't refute Perth Group, Lanka etc. on virus isolation issues etc. It's not even an attempt at a remotely fact sourced argument, at high-minded rhetoric, never mind a refutation. It's just ego bloviating. It's the mo of every blowhard. I know you are not a blowhard GeoDoorn, but that kind of argumentation leaves a lot to be desired.

Obviously everything I could write here, even if I wrote a book here, wouldn't make a difference. I mean the far more detailed and technical expositions of the likes of the Perth Group, Lanka, Kauffman mean nothing to you, you don't appear to want to know what they are saying. You don't refute them because you don't even know what they are saying. Making a lame charge of BS - as you do - is not remotely good enough. And I don't think you would necessarily get what they are saying, because you don't really get the points I make on bacteria and terrain. You don't know what the radical naturopathic school means by terrain in toto, you haven't perused their literature here. It goes against your own education, your training. I know. You need to decondition! You need to read the naturopathic and virus dissident literature! So a far less detailed and nitty-gritty argument that I would make here re viruses - never mind the reality of the HIV, corona testing fraud - likewise is just going to see you dismiss it, without getting to grips with it. You've already done so. Obviously it doesn't matter what I write here, or who I cite, you are going to say what you say. It's all nonsense to you and your kind! No matter what. You imply that Dubos was full of BS, that his writings re bacteria, antibiotics, disease are laughable. It's implicit in your ranting directed my way. Now that is truly laughable. You tell me you don't have the time to look into things deeper (a few days back now this is what you wrote), but you have the time to rant here on this forum.

Kary Mullis dismissing Quantitive PCR as a diagnostic tool for testing for viruses (their nucleotide sequences), he called it an "oxymoron", and much of the testing worldwide for SARS-CoV-2 is PCR testing, including in the USA, means nothing to you. And your deeply conditioned kind. Mullis was a full-on AIDS dissident btw. But yeah he was the idiot who was full of BS, GeoDoorn knows better. Perth Group literature on HIV means nothing to you. You tell us you don't have the time to dig deep, but you have written several postings here in this now lengthy back-and-forth.

Likewise you can't get to grips with what Kauffman, Cowan, Frei, Lanka, Alexov, Kohnlein are actually saying about SARS-CoV-2, wouldn't have a clue going by GeoDoorn's commentary. Namely their responses to the numerous labs around the world claiming SARS-CoV-2 isolation, you don't know what the former are *actually* saying, and you don't appear to want to know.

I have asked these questions, got no answer from you: What are AIDS dissidents saying in their own words in toto about gay AIDS ALONE? I have made this challenge, never got a response from you. And the others on your side. Charlie P inadvertently mentions a few things (such as poppers), but still doesn't remotely get to grips with what AIDS dissidents (and the NIH's own activity here in the early days of the GRID pandemic, which is very revealing) are saying re gay AIDS in toto. So when you don't get to grips with what they are saying, on gay AIDS ALONE, because you don't want to know, nothing I write will make a difference to you and your ilk neither. On HIV/AIDS, SARS-CoV-2 alone, never mind the philosophy of naturopathic medicine, you don't lend a sympathetic ear. I'm not writing this for those whose minds are already closed on these issues.

Here's another challenge: how many people are killed by the med profession every year in the USA (iatrogenic deaths)? What are the figures for the most recent years that we have on record? Figures coming from the NIH or WHO itself. These figures ignore those maimed by the med profession, and in fact these figures on iatrogenic deaths are way too conservative (since deaths from vaccines are not always recognized as such or reported as such, deaths from AIDS drugs are blamed on HIV, but let's ignore that for argument's sake). And tell me, given these huge numbers of iatrogenic killings in the USA alone, why I should take Establishment Gangster Medicine seriously? You have a background in biochemistry, so what, so do plenty working for Gangster Big Pharma Medicine. And you work in a completely unrelated field. You don't get what I write or allude to on bacteria, antibiotics, you don't get what is meant by the environment/terrain in this context. You are looking at it in a superficial way, you need to dig deeper into the naturopathic friendly literature here. So viral isolation issues, which is more difficult to get or appreciate for somebody conditioned into the allopathic medical model, is going to be even more of a step up. To put it mildly. You don't even check up on it, you don't have the time you have said, but have the time to rant here. Truth is you find it deeply disturbing.

Again, what are virus dissidents saying re gay AIDS in toto, I still haven't heard from you in this respect GeoDoorn; never mind on the HIV isolation issue and the papers of Gallo, Montagnier and others here, addressed by the Perth Group and others? What are the virus dissidents such as Frei, Kohnlein, Kauffman, Lanka and Cowan saying in response to labs (and their 'scientific' papers) claiming they have isolated SARS-CoV-2? You don't address the extracellular vesicle (exosomes) issue, that Michael Larkin has mentioned. You don't appear to get the implications here.

You work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols. So what? How does that mean you know the first thing about the problems in modern medicine and virology? You clearly don't. What does your field of work have to do with viruses and related, what does it have to do with the conflict between allopathic medicine vs naturopathic medicine, and the history here? Your field of knowledge and work has nothing whatsoever to do with it. You write (once again) that you can detect BS when you see it. Every know-it-all on the planet blowing smoke says the same thing. On near every topic under the sun. That's not a remotely logical point btw. It's just bluff and bluster. That's all.

GeoDoorn: "I have skills to separate valid things from BS." That is so not a logical argument/point/barb at all. To repeat and hammer home the point. It has nothing to do with authentic rhetoric, with making a scientific case. It's why nothing I write can probably ever reach you. At least on an issue that clearly disturbs you. Even though otherwise you may be very logical and scientific. Anybody and everybody can say "I have skills to separate valid things from BS" in response to anything they don't like to hear. People say that kind of thing all the time. Doesn't count for much.

Later edit: I have edited this several times, when I need to be doing other things. For what it's worth I appreciate GeoDoorn's commentary, forces me to flesh out things more, dig into my memory store... even as we can both get hot tempered. I hate this about internet forum argumentation, but it seems to be the nature of the beast. The lack of face to face contact is not to the good. If you read it earlier, I have added commentary on anthrax, that I forgot to mention earlier. Also this is my last lengthy post on this thread. I promise!
You have not answered my questions. I am sorry, but from now on I will ignore your drivel.
 
Interestingly, the PCR tests only run on a short base sequence - typically 20 bases long. There is a 4^20 chance of a random match with anything.
A 1 in one trillion might sounds good odds, but when you bear in mind the size of the human genome plus the sizes of the genomes of whatever else is found in the human respiratory system, it doesn't look totally safe.
yes, but don't you think it would be quite a feat for several groups to hit this lottery ticket?
 
yes, but don't you think it would be quite a feat for several groups to hit this lottery ticket?
Well we have 6.4 x 10^9 bases in our genome - that is the number of places that the 20-base sequence could match. Now that might be good enough (1 chance in 156 of a random match) if the PCR probes only encounter human-origin DNA, but there are fungi and other viruses plus bacteria in our respiratory tract. Depending on how many types, you could be getting close to 10^12.

Of course, we are presumably only looking at RNA that is being expressed in a particular cell (since this is RT-PCR) so I'm not sure how much that alters things, but since the first step of RT-PCR is to convert the RNA to DNA, I wonder if DNA in the sample gets tested as well. The RNA has also undergone some splicing, which complicates things a bit more.

However that analysis would suggest that we are close to the right ball-park for false positives.

It is said that the number of false positives is strongly dependent on the number of cycles that the PCR uses. By 60 cycles every test comes out positive. Prof Carl Heneghan in Oxford (UK) reckons the number of cycles should be cut from about 40 to 25 to get a more accurate picture of what is going on. If it is true that 60 cycle tests always come out positive, it suggests to me that there is also some additional chemical noise creeping into the process.

(Each cycle duplicates the DNA in a way that is something like the natural process.)

David
 
Last edited:
GeoDoorn to me; "Wrong. I actually studied to become a biochemist, but then switched fields, that's one. Second, in work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols, among other things. I told you that I can detect BS when it is there, such as in climate science. But unlike you, I have skills to separate valid things from BS. I asked quite a few questions and all I hear back is the same nonsense. Your argument about antibiotics is loughable, see above. And I have not seen anything better in any of your posts so far and I am afraid that's symptomatic."

You have not really addressed what I am talking about. And my commentary on antibiotics and bacteria is hardly laughable, it's not even that controversial (among the naturopathic school at least, unlike radical virus dissent. And on bacterial resistance to antibiotics not at all). You just bluff and just do not really understand what I write, because it goes against everything you have been taught. We are going along 2 different tracks and there is no common meeting ground really. You objected earlier, why do antibiotics work? You ignored the meaning of successful bacterial resistance to antibiotics, the literature on this topic alone is huge and goes back more than 6 decades (the terrain btw would include the mind-body system of the patient. But you won't know what I am getting at here). You don't get what the naturopathic school means by environment/terrain, as a whole. Obviously bacteria are still a big part of the problem with infections/bacterial diseases (being ASSOCIATIVE with the disease), hence the antibiotic treatments, I never denied that. I can keep repeating the point, but I think I expressed it well enough earlier. You didn't get the point I was making. So it's a waste of time arguing really. Albeit I appreciate your comments. You are trained to see it differently, so that's how it is.

You don't acknowledge bacterial resistance to antibiotics in any serious way and how this has been a big big problem in medicine, never mind the side-effects of antibiotics in patients which are often severe, in your postings. I cited Dubos, one of the great fathers of antibiotic research; so according to your uh logic, you imply that Dubos's later notions on antibiotics and their use in the war against bacterial infections/disease were laughable too (even as they were based on years of experience and research. Once again Dubos is one of the giant names in antibiotic breakthroughs). I realize you didn't get the point I was making (the point about bacteria and the terrain, it's more complex than you think). This is why you cannot get AIDS dissent or SARS-CoV-2 dissent, and why you clearly don't want to know. You don't get the meaning of antibiotic resistance by bacteria (you don't even acknowledge it in in your first knee-jerk commentary on antibiotics), the med profession is treating the surface issue... Yes it is necessary to treat the surface issue, of course, but it's still the surface, associative issue. It is not the underlying causative issue, even though GeoDoorn and others don't get what I am saying here.

You bring up anthrax, but how does anthrax thrive in nature? Sure we can and do culture the bacterium here. And various chemicals, UV, can destroy or reduce the virulence/multiplication of anthrax, and it can be modified artificially to be more virulent. So? UV has an effect on anthrax bacteria, yes. So? And antibiotics are prescribed to combat various bacterial ailments. So? The latter objection of yours follows the same kind of pattern as your UV and anthrax one. You are in both cases looking at the surface issue. It's part of your education. Not denying any of this, nobody does, but the anthrax bacteria are being cultured in a hospitable environment (to them), artificially. That is in culture, in vitro. By lab scientists. The bacteria are still dependent on the right artificially engineered environment to thrive and multiply (and nobody is denying how dangerous these bacteria are). A man-made environment is still an environment. An in vitro culture is still an environment. The cultured bacteria cannot exist without that just-so-right in vitro culture, the necessary nutrients, temperature, other factors. It's an environment. Even if a man-made one. Important to stress: how does anthrax thrive in nature? Your comments on anthrax tell me you don't get what the naturopathic school is saying here, you have to read their literature.

You studied biochemistry. So what? The Gangster Med Profession currently destroying the world with this covid mania (when not poisoning children with vaccines and killing people the world over with AIDS drugs, and so much more iatrogenic disasters) is made up of professionals with backgrounds in biochemistry, immunology, virology, plain med degrees etc. You know nothing of gangster medicine, and nothing of the dubious claims of virology (including blunders admitted by the orthodoxy, such as the discredited notion that retroviruses cause certain rare leukemias) and you don't appear to want to know. But hey one day maybe you will be more open minded here. I hope so.

Going by your condescending dismissal, typical, one would have no idea what I actually wrote, on HIV/AIDS, COVID-19 etc. And why the establishment here can't possibly admit to blundering. You can't even bother to check what AIDS dissidents and SARS-CoV-2 dissidents are saying in their own words. And what about the polio scandal? You don't know and you don't want to know. I give the links, the names, but you are not interested. So if you don't care for what they say, just dismiss it out of hand even as you have no idea what they are saying, it goes against your conditioning, why would anything I write here make a difference? GeoDoorn writes: "I have skills to separate valid things from BS." That's not a scientific point btw. It's just argument from personal conviction. And personal ego. There is no substance to it. It doesn't refute Perth Group, Lanka etc. on virus isolation issues etc. It's not even an attempt at a remotely fact sourced argument, at high-minded rhetoric, never mind a refutation. It's just ego bloviating. It's the mo of every blowhard. I know you are not a blowhard GeoDoorn, but that kind of argumentation leaves a lot to be desired.

Obviously everything I could write here, even if I wrote a book here, wouldn't make a difference. I mean the far more detailed and technical expositions of the likes of the Perth Group, Lanka, Kauffman mean nothing to you, you don't appear to want to know what they are saying. You don't refute them because you don't even know what they are saying. Making a lame charge of BS - as you do - is not remotely good enough. And I don't think you would necessarily get what they are saying, because you don't really get the points I make on bacteria and terrain. You don't know what the radical naturopathic school means by terrain in toto, you haven't perused their literature here. It goes against your own education, your training. I know. You need to decondition! You need to read the naturopathic and virus dissident literature! So a far less detailed and nitty-gritty argument that I would make here re viruses - never mind the reality of the HIV, corona testing fraud - likewise is just going to see you dismiss it, without getting to grips with it. You've already done so. Obviously it doesn't matter what I write here, or who I cite, you are going to say what you say. It's all nonsense to you and your kind! No matter what. You imply that Dubos was full of BS, that his writings re bacteria, antibiotics, disease are laughable. It's implicit in your ranting directed my way. Now that is truly laughable. You tell me you don't have the time to look into things deeper (a few days back now this is what you wrote), but you have the time to rant here on this forum.

Kary Mullis dismissing Quantitive PCR as a diagnostic tool for testing for viruses (their nucleotide sequences), he called it an "oxymoron", and much of the testing worldwide for SARS-CoV-2 is PCR testing, including in the USA, means nothing to you. And your deeply conditioned kind. Mullis was a full-on AIDS dissident btw. But yeah he was the idiot who was full of BS, GeoDoorn knows better. Perth Group literature on HIV means nothing to you. You tell us you don't have the time to dig deep, but you have written several postings here in this now lengthy back-and-forth.

Likewise you can't get to grips with what Kauffman, Cowan, Frei, Lanka, Alexov, Kohnlein are actually saying about SARS-CoV-2, wouldn't have a clue going by GeoDoorn's commentary. Namely their responses to the numerous labs around the world claiming SARS-CoV-2 isolation, you don't know what the former are *actually* saying, and you don't appear to want to know.

I have asked these questions, got no answer from you: What are AIDS dissidents saying in their own words in toto about gay AIDS ALONE? I have made this challenge, never got a response from you. And the others on your side. Charlie P inadvertently mentions a few things (such as poppers), but still doesn't remotely get to grips with what AIDS dissidents (and the NIH's own activity here in the early days of the GRID pandemic, which is very revealing) are saying re gay AIDS in toto. So when you don't get to grips with what they are saying, on gay AIDS ALONE, because you don't want to know, nothing I write will make a difference to you and your ilk neither. On HIV/AIDS, SARS-CoV-2 alone, never mind the philosophy of naturopathic medicine, you don't lend a sympathetic ear. I'm not writing this for those whose minds are already closed on these issues.

Here's another challenge: how many people are killed by the med profession every year in the USA (iatrogenic deaths)? What are the figures for the most recent years that we have on record? Figures coming from the NIH or WHO itself. These figures ignore those maimed by the med profession, and in fact these figures on iatrogenic deaths are way too conservative (since deaths from vaccines are not always recognized as such or reported as such, deaths from AIDS drugs are blamed on HIV, but let's ignore that for argument's sake). And tell me, given these huge numbers of iatrogenic killings in the USA alone, why I should take Establishment Gangster Medicine seriously? You have a background in biochemistry, so what, so do plenty working for Gangster Big Pharma Medicine. And you work in a completely unrelated field. You don't get what I write or allude to on bacteria, antibiotics, you don't get what is meant by the environment/terrain in this context. You are looking at it in a superficial way, you need to dig deeper into the naturopathic friendly literature here. So viral isolation issues, which is more difficult to get or appreciate for somebody conditioned into the allopathic medical model, is going to be even more of a step up. To put it mildly. You don't even check up on it, you don't have the time you have said, but have the time to rant here. Truth is you find it deeply disturbing.

Again, what are virus dissidents saying re gay AIDS in toto, I still haven't heard from you in this respect GeoDoorn; never mind on the HIV isolation issue and the papers of Gallo, Montagnier and others here, addressed by the Perth Group and others? What are the virus dissidents such as Frei, Kohnlein, Kauffman, Lanka and Cowan saying in response to labs (and their 'scientific' papers) claiming they have isolated SARS-CoV-2? You don't address the extracellular vesicle (exosomes) issue, that Michael Larkin has mentioned. You don't appear to get the implications here.

You work in environmental chemistry and bioaerosols. So what? How does that mean you know the first thing about the problems in modern medicine and virology? You clearly don't. What does your field of work have to do with viruses and related, what does it have to do with the conflict between allopathic medicine vs naturopathic medicine, and the history here? Your field of knowledge and work has nothing whatsoever to do with it. You write (once again) that you can detect BS when you see it. Every know-it-all on the planet blowing smoke says the same thing. On near every topic under the sun. That's not a remotely logical point btw. It's just bluff and bluster. That's all.

GeoDoorn: "I have skills to separate valid things from BS." That is so not a logical argument/point/barb at all. To repeat and hammer home the point. It has nothing to do with authentic rhetoric, with making a scientific case. It's why nothing I write can probably ever reach you. At least on an issue that clearly disturbs you. Even though otherwise you may be very logical and scientific. Anybody and everybody can say "I have skills to separate valid things from BS" in response to anything they don't like to hear. People say that kind of thing all the time. Doesn't count for much.

Later edit: I have edited this several times, when I need to be doing other things. For what it's worth I appreciate GeoDoorn's commentary, forces me to flesh out things more, dig into my memory store... even as we can both get hot tempered. I hate this about internet forum argumentation, but it seems to be the nature of the beast. The lack of face to face contact is not to the good. If you read it earlier, I have added commentary on anthrax, that I forgot to mention earlier. Also this is my last lengthy post on this thread. I promise!
First, if you quote someone, please use the quoting mechanism that is used most simply y selecting a bit of text in someone else's message, and pressing the popup "Reply" button. Properly quoted text is clearly distinguishable from your text - which makes it easier to understand.

Second, you can't cram half a book's worth of information into one post - it just makes my brain barf! This is the place to discuss fringe scientific ideas, but you will have to take it very steadily.

I'd start by explaining your understanding of what is the difference between isolating a virus and almost-isolating a virus. I have had a go above, but you can probably pin this down a lot more. For example, I have read that isolating a virus includes showing an electron micrograph of virus particles to show that they are freed from other impurities. One thing I have to wonder, is whether viruses of different 'species' are easily to spot in such an image.

David
 
Well we have 6.4 x 10^9 bases in our genome - that is the number of places that the 20-base sequence could match. Now that might be few enough if the PCR probes only encounter human-origin DNA, but there are fungi and other viruses plus bacteria in our respiratory tract. Depending on how many types, you could be getting close to 10^12.

Of course, we are presumably only looking at RNA that is being expressed in a particular cell (since this is RT-PCR) so I'm not sure how much that alters things, but since the first step of RT-PCR is to convert the RNA to DNA, I wonder if DNA in the sample gets tested as well. The RNA has also undergone some splicing, which complicates things a bit more.

However that analysis would suggest that we are close to the right ball-park for false positives.

It is said that the number of false positives is strongly dependent on the number of cycles that the PCR uses. By 60 cycles every test comes out positive. Prof Carl Heneghan in Oxford (UK) reckons the number of cycles should be cut from about 40 to 25 to get a more accurate picture of what is going on. If it is true that 60 cycle tests always come out positive, it suggests to me that there is also some additional chemical noise creeping into the process.

(Each cycle duplicates the DNA in a way that is something like the natural process.)

David
It's a bit more complicated than just bases, it needs specific sequences for gene delineation, but let's drop it for a moment.
PCR as a testing tool is a different story. As far as I am concerned, what they call covid or at least all those meaningless counts could be a bunch of flu-type viruses. The problem is not isolation but that PCR is being abused to justify this horrendous population control. I think I have shown that this "there is no virus" is neatly folded into a pile of BS. Who benefits?
 
p.3-5: Discusses the free energy and entropy. Somehow he forgets to specify which free energy he is talking about. In thermodynamics there are two - Gibbs and Helmholtz free energies. Gibbs is more general as it incorporates the pressure and volume of the system. Both have -TS term (temperature times entropy). From my experience in chem systems, TS is quite small relative to say the enthalpy (go look at the phase transition data in a NIST online database). I am saying this because one needs to keep in mind relative importance of different processes, which he fails to demonstrate or cite others who demonstrate that the changes that he lists are significant or at least that they can be significant relative to the system at hand. Same with heat transfer (actually it is not that difficult, at least in the first approximation). We all know that different parts of our bodies could have quite different temperatures (think of your hands in cold weather) - yet, the system works fine. My point is what is he worried about, 0.1C difference, 10C difference? Why does he think it is important? BTW, it's his job to do it, not the "defending" side. He fails to support his concerns in this regard.

His concerns about differences in g's in a centrifuge is also a perfect example of a red herring. This stuff is known (apparently not to him, which casts quite a shadow on his credentials or state of mind), for example (see fig.7.1 with all the different radii there): https://www.biologydiscussion.com/m...fugation-technique-of-molecular-biology/26504

The rest of the text suffers from the same shortcomings. For example, he questions electron microscopy. He cites papers as late as 2010, but he is horribly outdated (yet more shadows on his abilities at the time of writing, he seems stuck in the 60s and 70s, I suppose his golden times). But fine, let's suppose EM is wrong. There are now optical techniques that can actually do things on nanoscales in vivo, i.e., not what he says is possible only with dead cells. See an abstract here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28924658/ An excerpt: "TED microscopy facilitates the visualization of the highly complex and dynamic morphology of neurons and glia cells deep inside living brain slices and in the intact brain in vivo". Note the "intact brain" part, it destroys Hillman's objections. And please don't try to say that this STED paper is outlier by some lying corrupt eggheads - Nature Methods is constantly filled with such various imaging techniques (look it up, at least the table of contents should be available).

He discusses some of the criticisms of his work, the only one coming close is: "Thirdly, it was asserted that the structures which I had characterised as artefacts (Table 2) had been demonstrated by several different microscopical procedures, which they believed represented different independent lines of evidence. My response was that the alleged structures were not seen in fresh unfixed tissue, but in dehydrated, shrunken, stained preparations, which was the source of all the artifacts." As I have shown above his assertion that it is all about dehydrated, etc. preparations, does not hold water.

And he does not talk anywhere about microbes or germ theory.

OK, I had more than enough of all these "experts". Unlike you, I do not need experts, I ask critical questions that are easily testable by a layman.

I do support everybody in their efforts to improve their "territory", but would like to caution from testing the "anti-germ" theory and its approaches (why wash hands? - the Contagion Myth) on themselves - you could become one of those "Darwin award" winners (no, I am not a Darwinist, but you sure know what that award means).
.

First of all, why do you feel the need to take a condescending tone like that? Did you get picked on in school? I don’t appreciate being talked to that way. Do you have conversations in real life with people that don’t end with you getting punched in the face?

Second of all, I AM a layperson. A mere lowly peasant who lost his mother to “AIDS” and felt compelled to delve deeper into the pharmaceutical/medical/chemical/industrial complex. And to be honest, I have tested these theories on myself. I eat very very healthy and have not had any phlegm, mucus or fever in a very long time. Every once in a while, I recognize that I’m fatigued or stressed and I spend a day in bed fasting and I’m fine the next day. All of this monkey kidney bovine serum bullshit is a smokescreen so they can feed us high fructose corn syrup and and tell us we “caught a disease”

I have read every one of your posts and looked at the links you provided and the only thing you’ve proved to me is that you think human health is best left in the hands of sociopathic industrial chemists.
 
.
First of all, why do you feel the need to take a condescending tone like that?
I apologize for being condescending and I am sorry for your loss. I must say I did not expect people here to be very sensitive, but I should not have extrapolated the host to his community.

As I said in the previous post, I do support everybody in their efforts to improve their "territory" and that's what you are doing. This has nothing to do with the germ theory however. I hope you will understand it at some point. And no, I do not believe that the current medicine is great or that all petro-chem-based medication is working or not doing harm. I understand that you will not take my word, but there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people are being had with this "there are no virus" theory. Somehow, people who propagate such dangerous nonsense make me angry. We all have our shortcomings, this is one of mine.

Take care.
 
I apologize for being condescending and I am sorry for your loss. I must say I did not expect people here to be very sensitive, but I should not have extrapolated the host to his community.

As I said in the previous post, I do support everybody in their efforts to improve their "territory" and that's what you are doing. This has nothing to do with the germ theory however. I hope you will understand it at some point. And no, I do not believe that the current medicine is great or that all petro-chem-based medication is working or not doing harm. I understand that you will not take my word, but there is plenty of evidence that a lot of people are being had with this "there are no virus" theory. Somehow, people who propagate such dangerous nonsense make me angry. We all have our shortcomings, this is one of mine.

Take care.
I don’t think I’m being sensitive. I just find it amazing that you are making these grand proclamations as if the things you are saying are actually proving the existence of contagious diseases. Let me clarify. By contagion I mean “diseases acquired through breathing the air and living an every day life” not “being injected, or exposed to, poisons by mad scientists”. Those grotesque laboratory experiments they do on animals and cultured tissue only prove that being injected with poisons makes you sick. Let’s get Aristotelian here for a minute, what would you say the “first cause” of disease is? Whatever those barely perceptible strands of protein encapsulate DNA are, do you really think they are a primary cause of sickness in the world? Before diet, before lifestyle, before environmental toxins? Nothing you have posted proves to me that “Virology” is not a smokescreen set by the Oligarchy to avoid culpability in the poisoning of the peasants
 
It's a bit more complicated than just bases, it needs specific sequences for gene delineation, but let's drop it for a moment.
PCR as a testing tool is a different story. As far as I am concerned, what they call covid or at least all those meaningless counts could be a bunch of flu-type viruses. The problem is not isolation but that PCR is being abused to justify this horrendous population control. I think I have shown that this "there is no virus" is neatly folded into a pile of BS. Who benefits?
Well one problem with discussing something with immediate consequences that need reversing, is that sometimes half the story is more saleable than the whole story - even if the whole story is the ultimate truth.

I obviously utterly agree with you that the population control needs reversing fast.

David
 
I will just use ">" for quotes here. This will be a looooong one.

> Whilst it's true that Cowan veers off a bit towards the end of the book,

He is deep in it from the very beginning and all the way through. If you don't see it, I doubt anybody can convince you otherwise.
I don't want to either convince or be convinced. "Conviction" is the wrong word; it implies that I have firm ideas and am asserting something is wrong or right. Actually, my argument is that I don't have firm convictions in this matter; at most, I have strong suspicions. But a suspicion isn't a conviction; hence my word choice.

> imho his central thesis, that viruses may not in and of themselves be infective agents, is an intriguing and plausible one,

That intrigued me too. You can believe it or not, but that's why I wasted a few hours on it.
There was no need for all of the sentence highlighted in red. You could have left your statement at "That intrigued me too. You can believe it or not." But you added "but that's why I wasted a few hours on it". Why the word "wasted"? What does it add apart from evidence of your own predilection? You could have said something like "...that's why I spent a fair amount of time on it", and then come up with the reasons why it didn't convince you. But that would invite 2-way dialogue.

You don't always write in a dispassionate manner, or even sometimes use very clear language or spell correctly, which I would expect a scientist to do more often than you do.

Well, I guess you can give him credit there - making people aware of exosomes. There are much better ways to learn about them though.
What better ways? You don't say, just leave an air of mystery implying your own superiority.

As I see Cowan's and Co argument - it is nothing but a straw man. Let's take a criteria from a couple of centuries ago and demand that everybody now follows it. The funny part - he trashes the author of the criteria too.
Apparently, arguments from a couple of centuries ago, (viz. germ vs terrain theory, I assume) can automatically be dismissed. Follow that sort of thinking to its logical conclusion, and the only things that are right are what is most currently accepted by convention or consensus. I guess we can ignore Kuhn, and feel certain that paradigm shifts never occur, especially in favour of ideas from the past. Idealism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics, continental drift and so on are all, for all time, ruled out. Except that at least some of them may find themselves being taken seriously again.

And why? Often, because empirical evidence is discovered that conflicts with currently widely-accepted theoretical frameworks of a consensus of the priesthood scientocracy.

> One thing I'm very sceptical about is that we've "isolated" viruses that putatively cause AIDS and COVID-19. "Isolated" means one thing in commonsense understanding, and another to people (unjustifiably in my view) convinced that scientists have actually extracted pure viruses and used such extracts to infect uninfected organisms.

That's the problem with "isolation" critera that these clowns perpetuate. Let's take what they like - toxins, poisons. How about hidrogen cyanide (HCN)? I am sure everybody knows about it. Let's take a glass of water and another glass of water that contains HCN. HCN is not pure, right? It has water with it, a lot of it. You can add some other stuff to that sollution too, so it is not "pure" by any means. If you try to "isolate" HCN by drying water to see what is there, you will not find HCN in the residue - it's volatile, trust me, it will evaporate. What Cowans do is equivalent to crying that see, it was not isolated, so it's not that "hypothetical" HCN thingy that all the eggheads say kills people.
Your analogy is flawed. No one's arguing that exosomes don't exist, can't actually be photographed. No one's arguing that what are currently labelled "viruses"can't exist either. What is being argued is how to interpret them.

> Alas, the papers I've seen are often so obfuscated by jargon that it's difficult to be sure what procedures were followed.

That PNAS paper is quite plain language and they clearly define the difference between viruses (including damaged ones) and exosomes.
Yes, it was more or less plain English, and I actually said so earlier. But many of the technical papers in this area are unfathomable to the uninitiated.

> But there are quite a few qualified scientists who maintain that we haven't isolated viruses. Even the conventional scientists who ascribe to germ theory may say that their experiments haven't isolated the AIDS or COVID-19 viruses, especially when pressed for an opinion: or even when not, as when they include the explicit disclaimer in their papers.

That could be true. But that's true for other things, like diabetes seems to be one disease, but actually is a bouquet of things that go wrong. AIDS could be the same thing. I admit, I have not gone into it, I have only 24 h in a day.
How does it being true in other areas constitute a coherent and valid argument about the case under consideration?

> Many probably don't know about these additives, but if you were to propose injecting people solely with such toxins sans the supposed active principle, they'd be up in arms. However, add it in, and they're miraculously supposed to enthusiastically embrace vaccines. The active principle, an allegedly killed or otherwise disabled pathogen, apparently not only cures the disease, but also renders inoperative the toxic brew in which it is delivered.

But that's a different story from whether or not viruses/bacteria actually exist. Believe it or not, I stopped taking flu vaccines (not sure how long I will be allowed to do that), because I do not think the risks outway the gains, especially that quite often they mispredict the strain.
Good heavens. No one says bacteria don't exist -- not Cowan, not me. No one says that things we label "viruses" don't exist, either. What Cowan asserts, and what I'm at least willing to consider, is that they aren't necessarily always infective agents.

> We're seeing it all over the place -- from cosmology to psi research, Darwinism to nuritional science, and now, germ theory, which may be only partially correct. I never really questioned it before, but that's what I'm entertaining after reading Cowan's book.

That's what really perplexes me: you really don't see problems with Cowan's book? He's lying for crying out loud. 88 countries, if I remember correctly, had G5 by April 2019, but the effect was sooo slow I guess. G4, G3, radars - none gone away, and yet epidemics have a clearly isolated time signature. Can't you see through his BS?
I've already said that I am expressing no opinion about EMR. I'm focussing on germ theory. "Perplexed" is another of those words you seem to be using from an assumed position of vastly superior knowledge and understanding, which an eegit like me can't possibly appreciate.

When it comes to biology, I'm an educated layman with a degree in zoology and a some postgraduate experience in that field, plus a botany ancillary and a year in chemistry and biochemistry . I also hold a master's degree in education, a teaching certificate and qualifications in programming and systems analysis, which I was employed in for many years. Don't treat me like an idiot: it says more about you than me. Others here are just as well-educated as I am -- and we have several people here with phDs. So don't think you can get away with dismissive hand-waving.

You don't have to agree, but if you want to disagree, you need to present your case more coherently. IMO, you try to say too much in too small a space. I think you need to slow down and concentrate on one or a few points at a time and really thrash them out rather than jumping about all over the place. And cultivating a little more humility might prove helpful.

I don't think his argument is anywhere near being plausible, I gave plenty of reasons. What are your reasons that there is a baby in that bathwater?
What you think his central argument is, is quite possibly not the same as what I think it is. Yes, he points the finger at EMR such as 5g and earlier sources throughout history, but I'm not focussing on that. I've already given my reasons, so check them out and don't ask me to repeat myself.

To say Cowan's lying implies intent. People can be wrong without lying -- don't you see that?

I like it too. Apply it to Cowan's work and see what happens. He is a complete fraud and I gave you reasons why.
No you haven't. You only think you have. Again, fraud implies intent to deceive, and you aren't a mind-reader. That he might be wrong is a given, but I've never implied he is right: only that he makes some interesting points that cause me to question assumptions I've formerly held.

> Maybe some bacteria are infectious, as may be some particles we label "viruses", but the rest act in ways that help us. One sticking point is the fact that no "viral" agent appears to have been demonstrated to satisfy Koch's or Rivers' postulates.

See above. What I have seen makes sense if you apply some logic: you add a mix of something that contains A,B,C,..., then you have a control that does not have A, see what happens. If the one with A caused problems, then it probably has something to do with it. If you also see that A increased in concentration after administering it - it probably is infectios, not just poisonous. You don't need to isolate it.
There you go again with the thinly disguised dig: "...if you apply some logic", implying I employ mostly illogic. And seeing as you mention controls, you should read the Perth group article (links directly to the PDF), "HIV -- a virus like no other". There you will find that the group has found a lot of evidence that Montagnier and Gallo were sorely lacking in their use of controls in experiments that purported to prove that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Or, don't read it and continue with the hand-waving. It's up to you.

>I've seen no convincing evidence it does, surrogate evidence having been taken as proof positive in lieu of actual isolation followed by actual infection and reinfection. This seems circumstantial to me.

Yes, a conjecture, but much stronger than a comet, would you agree?
I've said many times I'm laying aside the EMR argument. So why are you yet again attempting a strawman argument?

See above re postulates. Should we demand that all quantum phenomena be treated strictly within an outdated classical mechanics paradigm? Even if the quantum theory is wrong, it makes things tick - we would not be able to communicate now without all those semiconductors, you know. This is why a couple of posts back I brought up the pragmatic/utilitarian aspect of science. Even if a theory is wrong, if it makes things easier to interpret, predict, design useful things, etc, - that's all one needs, at least for a time being.
This is not an original view. However, scientific postulates and theories are but the way we model the world. As time progresses, we change our models. Those that are currently conventionally or consensually accepted are in most cases (and this includes Quantum Theory), provisional. The fact that a theory gives good (sometimes amazingly good) quantitatively applicable results doesn't mean that the theory, the model, is actually correct. Newtonian gravitational theory gives very good approximations in quantitative terms, but currently it's regarded as somewhat inaccurate in light of the Einsteinian model, which latter will quite possibly be amended or even, who knows, discarded. "Shut up and calculate" is a good way of suppressing dissent.

For me, a mistake that many scientists make is to take current models as representations of reality as it actually is. I'm not saying that you do, at least in some cases, but at a certain point, the utility of science can't, in the light of incoming empirical evidence, maintain the model. If science attempts to do so, it can become a science stopper: new empirical findings, if they run counter to expectations, may be dismissed. If they were taken on board, they might lead to actual progress. It's a balancing act, I'll grant you that, but knee-jerk hostility to things that challenge the status quo is a big problem.

Re controversies: Cowan claims germ theory is wrong. I think I have shown that he is full of shit.
How very eloquent and expansively explanatory that remark is! Actually, you haven't shown that. You've done a lot of hand-waving, used strawman arguments and a few dubious analogies, but you haven't even really tried to convince anyone of much that is specific. Could that be because you can't?

I'll stop there. You know, we used to have a guy come on this forum who reminds me of you -- he went by the soubriquet of "The Ethical Sceptic." He always used a lot of obscurantist terminology, so that few if any could grok what he said. Maybe he knew what he was talking about, and maybe he didn't, but whatever, I doubt much of what he said made much of an impact here. Be careful that you don't also end up being habitually disregarded.
 
Last edited:
I would urge everyone to actually read The Contagion Myth, as I am doing now.

It seems to me that it highlights enough intriguing facts to keep me reading.

For example, in support of his contention that polio was caused by toxins - probably DDT - rather than the polio virus, he points out that there is now a rare condition called Acute Flaccid Paralysis that is the modern equivalent of polio - right here in the West. I didn't really know whether to believe that, so I GOOGLEd it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/acute-flaccid-paralysis-syndrome

That one fact - there in black and white on a government website - stopped me in my tracks.

Whatever causes AFP - could that have caused polio all those years ago?

OTH, at another point he refers to the fact that some recent polio vaccines have actually given kids those symptoms, so the situation is very muddy.

Remember that this forum also covers a wide range of psychic phenomena, and I start to wonder if they have a role to play in physical disease and in epidemics.

David
 
I would urge everyone to actually read The Contagion Myth, as I am doing now.

It seems to me that it highlights enough intriguing facts to keep me reading.

For example, in support of his contention that polio was caused by toxins - probably DDT - rather than the polio virus, he points out that there is now a rare condition called Acute Flaccid Paralysis that is the modern equivalent of polio - right here in the West. I didn't really know whether to believe that, so I GOOGLEd it:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/acute-flaccid-paralysis-syndrome

That one fact - there in black and white on a government website - stopped me in my tracks.

Whatever causes AFP - could that have caused polio all those years ago?

OTH, at another point he refers to the fact that some recent polio vaccines have actually given kids those symptoms, so the situation is very muddy.

Remember that this forum also covers a wide range of psychic phenomena, and I start to wonder if they have a role to play in physical disease and in epidemics.

David
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/polio-timeline.html

Here’s a good reference point for inquiry into Polio
 
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/polio-timeline.html

Here’s a good reference point for inquiry into Polio
However, I wonder what you say to my other point:
OTH, at another point he refers to the fact that some recent polio vaccines have actually given kids those symptoms, so the situation is very muddy.
My point is that if the polio vaccine is made from virus, there should be no reason to expect it to produce polio - yet it seems to do - suggesting that the polio virus really does call paralysis! Cowan seems generally fairly meticulous and yet he doesn't comment (unless I missed it) on this seeming anomaly surprised me.

David
 
However, I wonder what you say to my other point:

My point is that if the polio vaccine is made from virus, there should be no reason to expect it to produce polio - yet it seems to do - suggesting that the polio virus really does call paralysis! Cowan seems generally fairly meticulous and yet he doesn't comment (unless I missed it) on this seeming anomaly surprised me.

David
I guess the tricky part is to discuss what else is in the vaccine? In the injection itself? If the metals in the vaccine have side effects that are also symptoms attributed to Polio it could explain it. Of course, I’m speculating, but I’d question what is in the vaccine. I found this: http://www.vaccine-side-effects.com/what-causes-polio-do-vaccines-help/
 
Last edited:
I guess the tricky part is to discuss what else is in the vaccine? In the injection itself? If the metals in the vaccine have side effects that are also symptoms attributed to Polio it could explain it. Of course, I’m speculating, but I’d question what is in the vaccine. I found this: http://www.vaccine-side-effects.com/what-causes-polio-do-vaccines-help/
Yes, but unfortunately it seems a bit of a stretch to believe that these metals just happen to produce the same symptoms as polio - there are plenty of other toxic symptoms they could produce. I imagine they are the same adjuvants as are used for many other vaccines.

David
 
Yes, but unfortunately it seems a bit of a stretch to believe that these metals just happen to produce the same symptoms as polio - there are plenty of other toxic symptoms they could produce. I imagine they are the same adjuvants as are used for many other vaccines.

David

You can skip to around the 25 minute mark. That’s where he discusses polio. Also, I don’t really know precisely what Dr Cowan is referring to. I realize I am continually using David Crowe to respond to criticism of Dr Cowan, but I trust David’s Research, not so sure about Dr Cowan.
 
Last edited:
Top