Andy Paquette, Precognitive Dreams |583|

what do you make of:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30226803/#:~:text=Rabies virus is shed in,in the US each year.

Isolation of Rabies Virus from the Salivary Glands of Wild and Domestic Carnivores during a Skunk Rabies Epizootic
Isabel Jimenez 1, Terry Spraker 2, Jessica Anderson 3, Richard Bowen 3, Amy Gilbert 4
Affiliations expand
Abstract
Rabies is a fatal zoonotic disease of global importance. Rabies virus is shed in the saliva of infected hosts and is primarily transmitted through bite contact. Canine rabies has been eliminated from the US, but wildlife constitutes more than 90% of the reported cases of animal rabies in the US each year.

Unfortunately, we don't have the full paper, but only the abstract. So we don't know exactly what methodology was employed. Hence nothing can be said about whether or not the rabies virus was isolated in the true sense of the word.

To illustrate, here is another (this time full) paper:

https://www.scielo.br/j/bjm/a/qJLmYWsMhHVQb6MBTfdbFhC/?format=pdf

The title of this latter paper ("ISOLATION OF RABIES VIRUS FROM THE PAROTID SALIVARY GLANDS OF FOXES") also suggests that viruses were isolated: but they weren't. The macerated and diluted salivary gland tissues of sick animals, along with antibiotics and rabbit serum, were injected into healthy mice. Then those mice that died were tested using FAT (Fluorescent Antigen Test) and something called MIT -- which acronym I can't find expanded. Since this was positive in some of the mice, they took it that the virus was present.

They didn't first isolate the virus in the sense of actually separating it from saliva and confirming that with electronmicroscopy. They didn't inject such a true isolate into the brain of healthy mice, but rather macerated/diluted salivary gland material along with antibiotics and rabbit serum. As far as I can see, they didn't perform a control experiment where pure distilled water plus antibiotics/rabbit serum MINUS the salivary gland extract was injected to see whether that too might cause the death of mice.

In this paper, just using the word "isolation" doesn't mean actual isolation occurred. Since I can't see what was done in the paper you posted the abstract of, I can't make a specific judgement of what they did. But if it was something similar, then my comments would be the same.

Have you by any chance read the full paper? If so, could you kindly let us know what experimental methodology was applied? Unless there was true isolation, and the absence of antibiotics/animal serum, along with electronmicroscopy of a portion of the same isolate, one can't say that the virus had been isolated. And, of course, controls would be needed to rule out the possibility that injecting distilled water, antibiotics and animal serum alone caused the same effect as with the parotid gland extract.

The antigens tested for in the example I've provided presumably came from some earlier experiment. One would have to find an example of that and determine whether true isolation occurred in that instance. That's key, and if one can find it, then the case is much stronger. So far, I haven't been able to track such a paper down. I'm not alone -- others have tried and not been able to find a single case where true isolation was performed for any virus.

Incidentally, FOIAs from many medical authorities have confirmed in writing that no true isolation of any virus has been performed.
 
Unfortunately, we don't have the full paper, but only the abstract. So we don't know exactly what methodology was employed. Hence nothing can be said about whether or not the rabies virus was isolated in the true sense of the word.

To illustrate, here is another (this time full) paper:

https://www.scielo.br/j/bjm/a/qJLmYWsMhHVQb6MBTfdbFhC/?format=pdf

The title of this latter paper ("ISOLATION OF RABIES VIRUS FROM THE PAROTID SALIVARY GLANDS OF FOXES") also suggests that viruses were isolated: but they weren't. The macerated and diluted salivary gland tissues of sick animals, along with antibiotics and rabbit serum, were injected into healthy mice. Then those mice that died were tested using FAT (Fluorescent Antigen Test) and something called MIT -- which acronym I can't find expanded. Since this was positive in some of the mice, they took it that the virus was present.

They didn't first isolate the virus in the sense of actually separating it from saliva and confirming that with electronmicroscopy. They didn't inject such a true isolate into the brain of healthy mice, but rather macerated/diluted salivary gland material along with antibiotics and rabbit serum. As far as I can see, they didn't perform a control experiment where pure distilled water plus antibiotics/rabbit serum MINUS the salivary gland extract was injected to see whether that too might cause the death of mice.

In this paper, just using the word "isolation" doesn't mean actual isolation occurred. Since I can't see what was done in the paper you posted the abstract of, I can't make a specific judgement of what they did. But if it was something similar, then my comments would be the same.

Have you by any chance read the full paper? If so, could you kindly let us know what experimental methodology was applied? Unless there was true isolation, and the absence of antibiotics/animal serum, along with electronmicroscopy of a portion of the same isolate, one can't say that the virus had been isolated. And, of course, controls would be needed to rule out the possibility that injecting distilled water, antibiotics and animal serum alone caused the same effect as with the parotid gland extract.

The antigens tested for in the example I've provided presumably came from some earlier experiment. One would have to find an example of that and determine whether true isolation occurred in that instance. That's key, and if one can find it, then the case is much stronger. So far, I haven't been able to track such a paper down. I'm not alone -- others have tried and not been able to find a single case where true isolation was performed for any virus.

Incidentally, FOIAs from many medical authorities have confirmed in writing that no true isolation of any virus has been performed.

I strongly encourage you to put a little effort into finding a guest/expert on this topic. I'm happy to help if need be.

your argument is Holocaust-denial-level silly, but since you and many otherwise intelligent folks have fallen into this rut it might be useful to explore.

BTW here another research article (with full text):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870277/

"Phylogenetic analysis showed that rabies viruses isolated in foxes, dogs and humans belonged to a single genetic variant."


logo-epidinfect.png

Epidemiol Infect. 2005 Jun; 133(3): 529–536.
doi: 10.1017/s0950268805003699
PMCID: PMC2870277
PMID: 15962560
Molecular epidemiology of rabies in northern Colombia 1994-2003. Evidence for human and fox rabies associated with dogs.
A. Páez, C. Saad, C. Núñez, and J. Bóshell
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract
During the period 2000-2003, wild grey foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in northern Colombia became infected with rabies. In order to derive phylogenetic relationships between rabies viruses isolated in foxes, dogs and humans in this region, 902 nt cDNA fragments containing the G-L intergenic region and encoding the cytoplasmic domain of protein G and a fragment of protein L were obtained by RT-PCR, sequenced and compared. Phylogenetic analysis showed that rabies viruses isolated in foxes, dogs and humans belonged to a single genetic variant. Speculative analysis together with epidemiological data indicated that rabies in foxes may have been due to contact with rabid dogs. Rabies transmission between dogs, wild foxes and humans may happen in natural conditions in northern Colombia. This finding is the first to suggest dog-to-fox rabies transmission in South America, and provides another example of dog rabies variants being able to successfully colonize wildlife hosts.
 
I strongly encourage you to put a little effort into finding a guest/expert on this topic. I'm happy to help if need be.

your argument is Holocaust-denial-level silly, but since you and many otherwise intelligent folks have fallen into this rut it might be useful to explore.

BTW here another research article (with full text):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870277/

"Phylogenetic analysis showed that rabies viruses isolated in foxes, dogs and humans belonged to a single genetic variant."


logo-epidinfect.png

Epidemiol Infect. 2005 Jun; 133(3): 529–536.
doi: 10.1017/s0950268805003699
PMCID: PMC2870277
PMID: 15962560
Molecular epidemiology of rabies in northern Colombia 1994-2003. Evidence for human and fox rabies associated with dogs.
A. Páez, C. Saad, C. Núñez, and J. Bóshell
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract
During the period 2000-2003, wild grey foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in northern Colombia became infected with rabies. In order to derive phylogenetic relationships between rabies viruses isolated in foxes, dogs and humans in this region, 902 nt cDNA fragments containing the G-L intergenic region and encoding the cytoplasmic domain of protein G and a fragment of protein L were obtained by RT-PCR, sequenced and compared. Phylogenetic analysis showed that rabies viruses isolated in foxes, dogs and humans belonged to a single genetic variant. Speculative analysis together with epidemiological data indicated that rabies in foxes may have been due to contact with rabid dogs. Rabies transmission between dogs, wild foxes and humans may happen in natural conditions in northern Colombia. This finding is the first to suggest dog-to-fox rabies transmission in South America, and provides another example of dog rabies variants being able to successfully colonize wildlife hosts.

Hang on. Did you read the other paper whose abstract you initially posted? Are you able to supply your own understanding of what methodology was used?

And are you able to get the gist of what they did in this new paper -- why exactly they think it proves isolation? It doesn't do to just take their word for it, one needs to look as closely as one can what they've actually done and make one's own determination.

I'll give you my understanding of the gist of this paper, and you can tell me if (and importantly, exactly why), you think I'm wrong.

The gist of what they're saying

It helps if I outline first how claims of virus isolation in general are currently made. First of all, a distinction should be drawn between supposed viruses and genetic sequences. There's no doubt that genetic sequences exist, can be collected and analysed, even manufactured and included in "vaccines". No one is denying that.

In attempting to determine the sequence of nucleotides in the genome of a putative virus, what should happen is that the virus is separated from anything else, that is, truly isolated. This could be done using density gradient ultracentrifugation or gel electrophoresis. Indeed, it has been done with bacteriophages, which are allegedly viruses (but some think they are bacterial spores). I think bacteriophages are real, BTW. So why it hasn't been done with other particles assumed to be viruses, I don't know; but as far as I'm aware, it hasn't.

If you had the alleged virus alone, separate from anything else, then you could collect its DNA (or RNA, as the case might be) and attempt to sequence it. You would then be quite sure that any sequences you collected actually belonged to the putative virus and nothing else. Thing is, the whole genome isn't collected -- it comes in pieces or fragments. So, even if one had an isolated suspect virus particle, there's the chance that its full nucleotide sequence might not be pieced together correctly.

The alleged virus particle isn't actually isolated, so there will certainly be all sorts of other organic material in samples taken from sick humans/animals and possibly "cultured" with bovine or monkey kidney cells, etc. They may be filtered and centrifuged (but probably not ultracentrifuged), and the supernatant be used for laboratory sequencing.

This is done on computer ("in siico"). Sequences collected from the alleged virus (but actually from a heterogeneous collection of DNA/RNA sequences from many disparate sources) are stitched together to generate the whole "virus" genome. At some point, a given researcher or group thereof will proclaim the stitched-together sequence as belonging to a particular virus.

Thereafter, other researchers, accepting that, go looking for identical sequences to detect when they've got a diseased human/animal showing the symptoms they're interested in - such as rabies, for example. I think rabies probably exists, by the way, and may well be caused by an infective agent, but is that agent a virus? That's the $64,000 question.

What is never done, and can't be done so long as the alleged virus hasn't been truly isolated, is to match its genome with the stitched-together sequences. Indeed, if they'd isolated the virus in the first place, even though they might not have got the genome sequence exactly right, they'd at least have some idea that any given sequence was found in the supposed virus.

It's as if one had a barrel full of lego block sequences comprising pieces of four different colours. Some of the sequences came from a toy house construction, some from a toy barn construction, yet others from other types of construction. Then someone comes along and says certain sequences came from one type of construction, because s/he can assemble them into that type of construction, or what he imagines that construction looks like. Say he's made a toy house. Then everyone else thinks that to build a toy house, one needs something very close to those sequences.

The four different "colours" of the lego pieces represent the four nucleotide components of DNA/RNA -- i.e. Adenine, Cystosine, Guanine and Thymine (or Uracil in the case of RNA). As things stand, no one could have the faintest idea where the genetic sequences originated - was it in a putative virus, bovine serum, cells/cell remnants from the diseased organism, bacteria that evaded the antibiotics used in cultures, or what?

This should shock you. It sure as heck shocked me when I found out what so-called "isolation" actually entailed. For a lot of my life I had simply accepted that viruses were real because of my 6 years training in biology, but when I looked into it because of the Covid farrago, I discovered that my problem had been dogmatic belief, not a degree of knowledge backed up by evidence. And this is why I have become a doubter of the standard narrative.

So how does all this relate to the paper you posted? Well, if you'll look at it closely, you'll see that they're identifying rabies based on the presence of certain sequences said to come from the rabies virus genome -- sequences that couldn't possibly have come from anywhere else than the virus. But I beg to differ. Ultimately, the source of their samples (via PCR) was brain tissue of sick animals, which contains, apart from putative viruses, brain tissue and possibly other bacterial and/or cellular debris.

If I remember correctly, Stefan Lanka added yeast cells to so-called culture media that contained everything normally found in cultures EXCEPT tissue from a diseased organism alleged to be infected with a virus. He found that many of the sequences derived were present in sequence databases and labelled as viral in origin. If I understand him correctly, he's suggesting that the sequences in viral sequence databases come not from viruses, but from other sources, such as sick human/animal cellular debris.

This also explains the origin of "viral" variants. Every now and then, someone comes up with slightly different sequences than those already on viral databases and proclaims that a particular virus has mutated. It's a never-ending source of income for pharmaceutical companies -- developing new "vaccines" to combat the latest variant. And a never-ending source of work for research virologists and others, ever-hungry for grant money and tenure. In my view, it's likely all smoke and mirrors, and if anyone has doubts about the consensus narrative, most of them keep quiet because today we are subject to scientism (based on belief) rather than science (based on evidence from properly controlled experiments).

Will you read and absorb the foregoing (not necessarily agree with it)? I have my doubts, but we will see. BTW, please drop the invective. I'm no more a holocaust denier than I am a flat earther. I'm surprised that an otherwise intelligent person should stoop so low as to suggest any such thing.

As regards people to invite on the show, the first three that come to mind are Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka. However, they all know one another and so probably wouldn't come on the show bearing in mind how Tom fared. Good luck if you manage to get one of them on, but frankly, I don't want to help you and then have them treated badly.
 
Last edited:
Did you read the other paper whose abstract you initially posted? Are you able to supply your own understanding of what methodology was used?

And are you able to get the gist of what they did in this new paper -- why exactly they think it proves isolation?

...As regards people to invite on the show, the first three that come to mind are Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka. However, they all know one another and so probably wouldn't come on the show bearing in mind how Tom fared. Good luck if you manage to get one of them on, but frankly, I don't want to help you and then have them treated badly.

I have a hard time believing that you guys are taking this seriously. it is so ridiculous... seems like trolling... but I've made that mistake before so I'll assume you're serious.

-- your claims about the first paper would have us believe these researchers, who's interest was the the unusual spread of rabies among a rare species of striped skunk in Colorado, are part of the grand rabies conspiracy. I mean, none of this research would even make any sense if they weren't able to "isolate" and test for the rabies virus.

-- your claims regarding the second paper or even more absurd... they not only isolated the virus they genetically decoded it and compared it to the virus in humans.

Regarding booking a guest there are a lot of other people other than the three that you mentioned. then again, I suppose you would have a hard time finding someone who rejects the idea the covid virus was a bio weapon engineered in a lab.

-- do you think the covid-19 virus was engineered in a lab through "gain of function research?"
 
-- your claims about the first paper would have us believe these researchers, who's interest was the the unusual spread of rabies among a rare species of striped skunk in Colorado, are part of the grand rabies conspiracy.

Just to act as a gadfly. It wouldn't necessarily require a conspiracy, just some assumptions that then become treated as facts. On a subject I looked more into: in astrophysics there's an assumption that there's such a thing as "dark matter". This is admittedly speculation because the calculations for gravity don't work, especially at an intergalactic level. But "dark matter" is regularly talked about as if it's a fact and that scientists even know how much dark matter there is as a percentage of the universe (!)...

I still doubt the no-virus position. But it is interesting how at the macro scale a substance has been made up ("dark matter" which is talked about as a fact), so on the micro scale it wouldn't surprise me so much either
 
Last edited:
PS I still very much doubt the no-virus position, but I don't think they're foolish to ask the question
 
PS I still very much doubt the no-virus position, but I don't think they're foolish to ask the question
I disagree. I mean, it may not be foolish to privately think it... But it's pretty foolish to post it as a reponse to this published paper:

We attempted isolation of RV from salivary gland tissues from confirmed rabid carnivores, comprising 51 striped skunks and seven other wild and domestic carnivores collected during 2013 through 2015 in northern Colorado. We isolated RV from 84.0% (158/188; 95% confidence interval=78.1-88.6%) of striped skunk and 71% (17/24; 95% confidence interval =51-85%) of other carnivore salivary glands. These data suggested that infected reservoir and vector species were equally likely to shed the SCSK RV variant and posed a secondary transmission risk to humans and other animals.
 
For some reason I hadn't yet seen this episode. I loved the art and perspectives. The analogy of the security guard and multiple monitors. Very thought-provoking!
Also the anecdote from the book The boy who spoke true, of the Indian yogi pretending to be Jesus on the astral plane in order not to be too confusing for the boy. Fascinating anecdote!
 
Loved this show. I've been away for a while wrestling with life's obstacles, and have missed out on so many great shows which I intend to go back through. It'll be like slipping in to a nice warm bath.

I found all of this fascinating.

Like Andy, I have had personally verifiable data in this area, albeit in fractional amounts compared to him.
Some years ago, I came across the suggestion that Lucid Dreaming is a thing one could learn to do. In preparation for lucid dreaming, I kept a dream diary. I acheived lucidity a handful of times, but kept recording my dreams for many years, as they were so fascinating in and of themselves.

In that time, small number of my dreams were mind blowingly precognitive - sometimes about things that would occur later that day, or a few days away, or even a few weeks to months away, and best of all, I had them written down to go back and check.

What I noticed in my case was that my precognitions were a combination of both symbolism and fact. A recent example is a dream I had where I was on a basketball court, and my ex boss walked onto the court bare chested, looking 12 feet tall with furry legs and very intimidating. He then turned into a midget, and not intimidating at all.

Later the next day, I got a message about a work tribunal "court" case that I'd all but forgotten about which had been dragging out for years. The message was that our ex boss was to be the star witness for the opposition in the case (which was intimidating and surprising). Month's later, his witness appearance in court led to our winning the case.

It occurs to me that the story and narrative elements in dreams are far more important and predictive than are the fact based one to one representations of reality presented in them. So for example in my dream, the basketball court I later understood to relate to the law court. My boss looking like an ogre and turning out to be a midget, I later understood symbolically in relation to my initial fear of his being a witness turning out to be nothing to fear.

The symbolic aspect of dreams is so hard for us to crack as most of us are very literally and logically minded in our day to day. Indeed the world demands we employ the literal and logical, and even punishies for failing to do so. This is why I think we have a hard time in waking life, reflecting on dreams, and what they may mean - many of us simply don't have the symbolic muscle mass or flexibility to do the heavy lifting.

I suspect that Andy's artistic soul is a tremendous aid in this respect.

It seems to me that both in NDE's and dreams, the narrative and symbolic elements are the things which make the biggest impact, and deliver the most profound information. When we evaluate these things from the mindset that the facts are gold, and the symbolism the dross, we make a catastrophic error and see things backwards and upside down.

On this point about symbolism, it gives me some small comfort in relation to Andy's more catastrophic dreams which may well end up being precognitive, in that we if we are lucky, his dreams of utter doom and destruction may turn out in the fulness of time to make more sense symbolically than literally. Here's hoping.

I would contend that dreams and indeed NDE's speak primarily to the heart, and are seemingly less concerned with appealing to the methodical and mechanical fact based logic of the mind. I fully understand why we are so driven to extract fact based information from these, such as veridical perceptions in NDE's which are later verified to be true, or dreams which do the same, as they grant us some certainty that something profoundly real but deeply mysterious is happening.

This topic of precognitive dreams is for me is as powerful in some respects as the NDE data, and perhaps even more so, as we don't have to die to get verifiable data! And potentially each of us can experience them if we devote some amount of our attention to our dreams.

What both these phenomena do magnificiently in my opinion, is blow the doors right off the materialist brain first hypothesis - I can't see how materialism can satisfactorily accomodate them.

Thank you Andy and Alex for this wondrous episode. Andy, you are a dream God, and I am in awe of you!
 
This topic of precognitive dreams is for me is as powerful in some respects as the NDE data, and perhaps even more so, as we don't have to die to get verifiable data! And potentially each of us can experience them if we devote some amount of our attention to our dreams.

Great point! one of those things that seems obvious once soulatman points it out!

raises all sorts of questions about how we understand/ internalize/ "get our stuff all mixed up with" information from these other realms.

given the range of nde accounts and in some cases their fallibility... and maybe even their potential to be " hacked" maybe we ought to take another look at dreams.
 
Back
Top