S3C 2020-04-16 11:08:55

will you be my puppet-master

S3C 2020-04-17 16:05:53

Good to know that you encourage individualized thinking- I'm new to this, and it's just that there's a lot to unpack here, you know? Let's start with your first claim:

"There is no test for an isolated virus, the test looks for exosomes. (response to any and all upset of bacterial balance)"

Can you expound more on this testing procedure? Viral particles can be intracellular or exosomal. From the sample to genome sequencing or protein detection, there doesn't seem to be a process that would classify the organelle source, nor does it seem relevant.

S3C 2020-04-18 17:34:24

Thanks for the response!

There's a lot of interesting points you introduced that I'd like to circle back to, but I'm going to stay within the scope of exosomes/viruses for this comment.

'They do not show a cell'

Seems to go with out saying, as exosomes by definition are extracellular.

'They do not show the structure of a virus'

Why not? If the exosome is large enough to house a virus, why couldn't this be the case? The article you link states that it is possible.

Again, the organelle or structure source doesn't seem relevant to testing. An oral or blood sample seemingly would encapsulate the entire cellular community, from the continuous membrane cells, protein layers, and free floating extracellular material.

Calamaistr 2020-04-19 04:19:03

When you look at what the mainstream medical world promotes as cov id19 they show the image of an exosome. This is not as to portray what it subjects to but what they look for in testing.
This means literally that they are testing for occurance of exosomes.

Beside that they often diagnose on symptoms (which are all cov and all influenza, all respiratory illnesses in fact. Not even on the above testing.

This is what i refer to and also conclude that it cannot be relevant to testing yet thats what they test on according to multiple sources such as andrew kaufman. I also explained that a virus cannot be a weapon nor can it "infect" anyone. Wether anything could "house" a virus does not mean it "houses" a specific virus nor does it mean it "houses" a virus by default. And yet the occurance of exosomes is enough for the testing procedure to diagnose with cov id19. (not that many people actually are being tested, which i believe is kept for a moment in time wherein most people are afraid enough to go along with measures they inflict upon themselves not to "infect" others the moment they consider themselves 'infected' ..which everyone is as everyone has exosomes, all the time.. from many causes.

Thank you for your interesting posting thusfar, im not entirely familiar with certain lingo but i learn quick. I come from the side of immunology and nutricianist sciences.. so its all still quick to understand. :)

This is a quite interesting video about the subject which puts it a bit better together than i can with my field of expertise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roDGPZMev7s

But its all intertwined. I research this subject for about 15 years now.
-Cal

S3C 2020-04-19 13:39:11

They just show the image of an exosome? That seems rather vague, can you expound on this a bit?

Do you mean they just test for the presence of any *exosomes* despite the body being an amalgamation of the aforementioned continuous cellular and extracellular material?

" Wether anything could "house" a virus does not mean it "houses" a specific virus nor does it mean it "houses" a virus by default"

Agreed, but can't electron microscopy be used to show viruses? Could the virus be a different looking exosome that doesn't appear in healthy tissue and generally disappears once the symptoms go away?

But is imaging even a diagnostic technique? A COVID-19 genome has been sequenced. I believe the standard procedure for any microbial infection is to take a sample, and use certain techniques to see if the pathogenic strain is there (or produces antigens native to the pathogen). If so, the exosome argument seems to me, irrelevant.

thanks for the video, will try to respond to Dr. Kaufman's points later

S3C 2020-04-20 18:22:11

There are upper echelon models priced in the millions; but otherwise I believe there are electron microscopes (with sufficient magnification/resolution to see viruses) to be had for much cheaper. Many research universities have them, and they can be purchased for the price of 2X a MRI. But this isn't a practical diagnostic technique (genetic testing is), and would be akin to using a shotgun to kill a fly. Besides, isn't imaging is needed to detect the presence of organelles and exosomes? Wouldn't this contradict the protocol?

Seems like this conversation is treading into 5G/NWO territory- relevant and important, but not a road I want to go down just yet at the current scope of this conversation. Yes, the censorship on popular social media platforms is tragic but not without a silver lining, it's making more people question, and providing exposure for the views which this medium try to quell. For Christ Sake, look at the comments on Bill and Melinda Gates Instagram accounts! The link still works, I'm watching it rn. The opening statement though- "This information hasn't been evaluated by the FDA. Please consult your physician before starting any medical regimen" Why should I? Isn't the FDA and establishment what they are trying to fight against?

S3C 2020-04-21 19:09:33

It's an infinitely deep discussion, and while I appreciate your passion (and will try to get to the rest of your message in its entirety), for a newbie like me the most effective way to absorb is from the bottom on up. I'm already a bit inundated with the high level explanations and narratives.

So to restate my two questions pertinent to testing:

1. How is the presence of exosomes determined without use of an imaging technique?
2. What is incorrect about the genetic testing and sequencing procedures?

Or should I just take your word for it now, and move on to formulating questions about a different point?

Cheers!

S3C 2020-04-22 20:56:12

Thanks for the honest response, I will respond to you more at length this time in systematic fashion, further covering some of the other points you have addressed.

Regarding 1, I was referring to hospital based testing. Most do not have electron microscopes, and as mentioned, it is not a practical method. Moreover, if they are testing based on symptoms opposed to sampling, as you suggest, then this vacuously affirms they do not test for exosomes. (And even if they did, all tests would be positive, as exosomes are a ubiquitous component of the cellular system, right?) So some of the information your are presenting to me here feels contradictory, and while doesn't entail that proper procedures are conducted overall, doesn't provide any evidence to the claim that "the test looks for exosomes".

To give an anecdote: I live right next to a hospital. I asked the front desk what the procedures are, they say it's by throat swab. They publish their numbers on their website. Most tests come back negative. Due to limited testing (it's a small hospital in a predominantly elderly community), they do not, unless you are 65+, have pre-existing conditions, have trouble breathing, or symptoms have not improved for a week. Now if the lab technicians are being dishonest and fabricating the numbers in cooperation with other hospitals statewide, I don't know.

"there not being a model for testing other than a test (and ive had to look for the name of it but cant find it anymore.. sigh sorry about this) that was stated by its creator to not be used for any viral conditions because its not reliable. "

hmm...PCR? I cannot find any objections using this technique to test for viruses. Why did the creator feel it was unreliable? And when did he say this? Since PCR has been further developed over the past few decades.

" Second is that all illness are ignored in a deathprocess and instead cov id19 is administered in the cause of death."

The numbers show that COVID-19 was discovered among those dead, but the raw statistics can not inherently imply that COVID-19 is (not) the cause (although that is how many are interpreting it) nor does is it based on other illnesses/status that the afflicted may have, including being elderly. But it's a bit of a semantics game. If you have a heart disease in which you are likely to get a heart attack, is it the disease or attack that is the cause of death? It's well known if not generally agreed that the elderly and those with combordities are more at risk, and logically it's reasonable to surmise that COVID-19 may be an aggravating factor, especially to those with respiratory illnesses.

" Notice how in the numbers known influenzas, pneumonias and even heart attacks have dropped to record lows"

Have they? Where have you heard this? I'm sure the data is out there, but I can't find any statistics that affirm this or a counterclaim. Pneumonia is often caused by respiratory viruses like influenza and COVID, so I'm bit skeptical of that.

"As for an even more obvious incorrect showcase is that the tests have four results"

How is it incorrect? What results should there be? The test is a binary classification, it's either false or positive (which is true or false).

"they then state people can have "it" without symptoms... which is medically impossible"

How so? Not everybody that tests positive for a micro-organism or genetic condition will exhibit the phenotypic conditions: IOW be asymptomatic

Calamaistr 2020-04-25 08:36:44

@S3C Ok i finally found the reference; Kochs postulates. Sorry i took so long.

S3C 2020-04-27 19:30:03

No worries about taking long I've been MIA for a few days anyhow.

I don't intend to dwell on the exosomes/hospital issue much longer, but you didn't fully address my retort. My fault as it was a bit long-winded. Let me clarify a few things

"Not contradictory at all."

you directly said they test for exosomes (now you are saying RNA) which caught my attention. But the vast majority of testing facilities do not even have the requisite technology to test for exosomes. This is the claim that is contradictory.

"Most test by symptoms unless they take a swab, when they do they test on rna and not on identified virusses."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. When you say 'test', do you mean test to officially confirm a case of COVID-19, or just using symptoms as a basis for self-isolation recommendations? no official testing would occur for the latter; positive cases aren't confirmed via a correlation to causation premise.

As far as I'm concerned, ALL official test numbers (in America at least) come from samples (i.e. via swab) NOT by symptom alone. Symptoms (along with age and other comorbidities, like mentioned) is a criterion for getting tested.

"You hit the hammer on the head when you said all tests would be positive, all tests ARE positive as in reality they declare all negatives a false negative"

I'm bushed on how to address this. What I said was purely theoretical in relation to exosome testing any why it would be pointless in principle, let alone for practicality; not the reported statistics on actual clinical tests.

More tests are negative than positive. Don't take my word for it though, I can't re-locate the source from which I obtained this aggregate statistic, but some states/hospitals websites publish their positive/negative ratios which support this.

"It isnt policy to begin with to declare a influenza as the cause of death when someone suffers from a failing heart, end stage parkinsons or old age complications, however now it is in this upside down world."

fair, nonetheless the numbers in of them itself are unbiased, the interpretations, implications, and associated factors (comorbidities) lies with the reader, while some may use the numbers to push agendas or turn the world upside down.

"The data for the record lows is everywhere on official institute sites."

Honestly, my Google-Fu has not been able to dig up any figures or current reports, so if you can share some of these official institute pages that would be appreciated. Either way I'll take your word for it, in which case additional skepticism is duly noted.

"Most flu is asymptomatic."

So you can be the carrier of a pathogen without showing symptoms then. Seems like we are in agreement? Sorry, I'm having difficulty seeing the context to frame your last paragraph.

BTW- influeza (flu) and coronavirus (COVID-19) are different viruses/illnesses. You probably know that, stating just in case.

Thanks for digging up the postulates but what are they in reference to? Koch died before the age of DNA and genetics lol, so I suppose your inclusion is for PCR creator's rebuke of applying PCR technique towards viruses? From reading up on the postulates, it seems they are to be used with a grain of salt in the modern age, even Koch himself that the postulates are not universal indicators of disease. I can elaborate if desired, or where the postulates mentioned for some other reason?

S3C 2020-05-03 21:38:52

thanks for posting the links, sadly no it doesn't answer my questions, but to be honest I just skimmed through them. Intelligent, well-respected individuals have always had differences of opinion. I was addressing you directly, and interested in what you have to say over them, so I was hoping that you would be able to improve my shallow understanding of this topic (as I am behind the curve), and I can reference back to your sources as necessary.

S3C 2020-05-04 12:23:41

um, excuse me? When someone cites something, they cite the page number, not the encyclopedia. I have watched some of your videos, and didn't hear anything substantial about exosomes. I don't have the energy (or time) to wade through multiple hour long videos to get those specific answers. If you don't know the specifics, just say so instead of expect others to sift for a needle in a haystack...

S3C 2020-05-05 03:26:48

I'm fortunate to still have my job. They are starting to bring people on site as a matter of fact, and my recent delayed responses were in lieu of trying to catch up.

Yes, I've watched the Dr. Kaufman video (that was the first one you linked me to I believe), he claimed that the virus was an exosome, but I don't remember him saying that the COVID-19 test "looks for exosomes". Anyway, I'm here to learn, and posting here because I value your 'alternative' opinion, and want to make clear that my questions aren't a veiled attempt to falsify anything. But like I said, intelligent people have varying opinions: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/47287/do-studies-show-that-viruses-are-contagious

anyway, have you seen this: https://nerdhaspower.weebly.com/ratg13-is-fake.html

S3C 2020-05-09 01:16:51

I don't find it somewhat suspicious. I find it highly suspicious. I 100% agree with your first paragraph. Censorship leads to suspicion and suspicion leads to division. It's especially unwarranted when the presenters have put in the legwork, present critical questions while being civil and keeping the fearmongering too a minimum. Yes, it can be scary, but if medical leaders are so confident about their science, and findings, and are health professionals over corporate revenue generators, they should *want* to be presented with opposing evidence and ideas for them to dispel.

That's cool, the links are only their for your reading leisure. It popped up while researching Dr. Kaufman. I thought that you as well, might be interested in reading opposing information to strengthen your own viewpoints. Not sure if by calling it 'speculation' your demeaning the links I post as lesser than your own- if you're unfamiliar with StackExchange, it's a premier, academic community where individuals (including seasoned professionals) provide substantial, well-sourced discussion. Post something less than well-founded, get trolled by a bunch of neurotic pedants- a process almost as rigorous as peer-review :P

And the last link is tangentially related to our discussion thus far- it has compelling genetic analysis that some of the genomic conclusions data was purposely falsified (in a way coinciding with some of your claims in the OP), and that the virus was not only created in a lab, but a manufactured bioweapon.

now back to the biology, per what I've researched:

"Uptill now not a single virus has ever been isolated because virusses evaporate before our very eyes the moment they are attempted to."

I don't feel this point is salient. Right, viruses don't just exist isolated on their own, they feed off surrounding cellular culture. Cells can last on a surface for extended periods of time and by extension, the viruses in them.

"As far as i know viral occurance is still a response to bacterial infection from bad enviroment, diet or in some cases simply heretidary causes. Virusses are not an agent of disease nor do they cause it. "

Viruses can invade and kill cells. For example, HIV invades T-cells and induces cellular apoptosis (suicide). While HIV is transmitted sexually and doesn't need require the causes you suggests to be effective, suppose for the sake of explanation the virus was caused by a bacterial infection, and suppose that said bacterial infection occurred due to cancer. And at the top level, this cancer was caused by a bad diet. From diet to the virus, IMO these are all agents of a disease that kills T-cells, and if the virus isn't present, there is no disease.

"And to fight virusses is to fight life itself because we are made from them with our immune system, we cannot live bubble wrapped. We need to build autonomous immunity. Not externally. Internally."

You're not wrong. We all need a healthy microbiome. Especially younger individuals need the exposure to germs for building their immune system, like you said. Those who ate their boogers when they were young are likely to survive COVID-19 or whatever pathogenic disease. Moreover, viral and bacterial therapy is a thing. One example of the former is introducing viruses to harmful bacterial hosts, to which they invade bacterial cells and cause them to burst due to over-proliferation of viral copies, effectively killing the bacteria and the virus along with it.

But not all viruses are beneficial. Not all bacteria is beneficial. And not all cells are good.
Treatment/prevention is a targeted and complex scenario often to the detriment of the microbiome. There are weighted risks. Sometimes the risk might be "there's a 10% chance fighting the harmful virus might kill me; best deplete my microbiome (which can be rebuilt later) vs a 50% chance that not fighting the harmful virus will kill me". No implications intended here towards the current situation.

"Virusses are much smaller than cells, so small it took ages for them to even be discovered and yet there are still claims that virusses can survive outside their originating host"

I don't see how size is relevant. As mentioned above, the virus is passed along with the encompassing cells that it has invaded. The host here can be as generic as cells types across species. The DNA that host produces itself doesn't seem to be universally relevant towards to viral survial. Thus, this would allow for viruses to be food or animal-borne.

"No virus is alive to begin"

From reading I see that viruses are considered to be on "the edge of life". What constitutes life has a fuzzy boundary, but this assertion is acceptable to me given that viruses need to hijack cellular machinery to be active.

The virus just needs the host to be alive. It doesn't "try" to stay alive or reach equilibrium like all other lifeforms, either. But this is more of a semantic issue and has no indiciation on its pathogenicity. I rather like this quote from The Matrix, Mr. Smith:

S3C 2020-05-09 01:17:21

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure."

"The test is for rna. This is admitted throughout all testing facilities because there is no virus isolated nor recogniced."

The test is for RNA and that is a standard procedure, they test for RNA that matches proteins (correct me if I'm wrong) of the sequenced COVID-19 genome, corroborated from health departments and universities around the world.

For your future reference, more information on testing procedures, results from testing kits of various companies (see the IFU documents) and accreditation, see:

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations#covid19ivd

The documents also confer results/procedures for testing and their sensitivity/specificity against other common viruses, including some influenza strains.

I've intentionally refrained on the poltical nature of this- I'm not smart nor brave enough. It's primarily built on speculation and furthermore not (or to a lesser degree) repeatable and verifiable like science. That said, my inclination to agree with your sentiments their is increasing daily.

RE: off the grid

I know. I actually read your previous blogs the last time I was on your page. Most admirable, and something I dream about doing myself in the future. Unfortunate in some ways I've become a slave to the corporate world and want to honor my contractual obligations and that requires heavy usage of computers and relevant technology. Not making any more digital music though...I think that would be difficult, and I'd certainly miss programming. I have a lack of the requisite survivalist skills but I would humbly learn to behave as nature intended.

S3C 2020-05-12 20:52:10

Cheers, Cal. Thanks for the kind sentiments and keeping it civil despite some potential disagreements. All the best to your life outside this digital fantasy.

Tyler 2020-05-19 11:12:39

based