All right. It is a real honor to have with us doctor Andrew Kaufman.
He is, among other things, a forensic psychiatrist, and I've said
for the longest time the only science really going on here is behavioral psychology.
He got his psychiatric training at Duke University Medical Center. He also has a
BS from MIT and molecular biology, and so we're going to tap into that
primarily today. Is a background of biology, says. He's been qualified as
an expert witness in local, state and federal courts. I've held leadership positions
and academic medicine and professional organizations. He ran a startup company to develop a
medical device that he invented and patented. So it's great to have on with
us now, doctor Andrew Kaufman. Thank you for joining us, Sir,
Oh, it's a pleasure to be here, David. One of the things
that I wanted to talk to you about, which I think is very very
important, and I've not really talked about this at all, and that is
the difference between their models and having anything that has been isolated. Talked to
us a little bit about that, what is involved with that because we just
as a background, I'll just interject this. You know, people have always
heard about in vitro, right, that means in the glass, you've heard
about in vitro fertilization. But then they look at effects of things as they
do an experiment and a Petrie dish, and then they also look hopefully at
what happens in living bodies. That's in vivo. But now we have what
they call I think it's in silico or something like that, where they do
the models, computer models, and they don't bother to do any other stuff.
It's their models. And of course it was their models that got us
into this lockdown marks the thirteen twenty twenty. But let's talk a little bit
about that models versus actually having some kind of an isolated pathogen. Tell us
a little bit about that. Well, let me first say that I really
appreciate that you're bringing up this topic and at this point, because it's really
imperative to understand the truth about infectious disease in order to prepare yourself to deal
with whatever may come in the future, because we know that this program will
run again. So and you've hit the nail on the head with the idea
of models or I call them simulations and there's really two parallel avenues of research
in virology where they do simulation. So one is with the physical laboratory experiments
that are in vitro like you described in a dish in the laboratory with a
lot of artificial ingredients and conditions. And then with respect to the genetic sequences
or they so called viral genome. And this is how the variance, by
the way, are identified, is purely by a computer model of the little
genetic fragments of unknown origin. So I could explain these two separately. The
physical laboratory experiments are a little bit more straightforward, so let me start there
that. And it's important to begin with definitions because the mainstream or if you
look in a typical biology or microbiology textbook, they'll have a specific definition of
viruses, and it describes them as particles that are made of certain materials,
that they generally have a protein coat or shell, and inside they contain proteins
and genetic material, and that they are what's called obligate intracellular parasites. In
other words, they can't reproduce on their own, but they allegedly invade host
cells, which would be like our cells if we got thick with a virus,
and inside our cells, they use our own machinery to make copies of
themselves and then they would you know, explode out, and those particles would
spread around and penetrate other cells and do the same thing, and that's how
we're told they cause disease. So that's the definition of a virus. Now.
Originally, when the word virus was used as a hypothesis to explain illness
and medicine, it didn't have that definition at that time. It was just
thought to be a poison. In fact, the word virus comes from the
Latin meaning poison or it was used to describe things like snake venom back in
antiquity. But in the modern era, like around the turn of the twentieth
century, when there were experiments with tobacco mosaic virus, which is not a
virus. At the time, the theory or a hypothesis was that it was
a toxic protein perhaps that could reproduce itself or amplify itself, but they had
no idea about particles. When the electron microscope was invented in the late nineteen
thirties, that's when scientists actually started looking at disease tissue for illnesses that they
couldn't explain otherwise, Like in other words, they didn't find bacteria there,
and they suspected there was some small poison or particle like that they called the
virus at the time, they began looking at disease tissue, but they couldn't
find any particles that represented a single thing. They just found essentially breakdown products
of our own cells and tissues. And now it's well characterized that when our
cells or any other animal cells are damaged, that they form little particles.
Kind of like if your house got hit by a tree and a hurricane and
you had to clean up the mess, you would take all of the destroyed
materials and put them in plastic bags, and each plastic bag would be like
a separate compartment. And that's a way to dispose of the trash without getting
the contents everywhere. And our bodies do the same thing. So what happened
was is that even though they were unable to find these particles or have a
clear theory about viruses, they already had been making vaccines and they were convinced
themselves that they were growing viruses in a cell culture when they made these vaccines.
Even though they had no evidence of that. In other words, they
never identified the actual virus in there conclusively. They just assumed that it was
always in there. And there was a problem though, because they thought that
they had to use the type of cells that are infected. So, for
example, in polio, it's a disease of the spinal cord, so they
would thought that to grow the poliovirus, which they never showed to exist,
that they would have to use cultures of spinal cord cells, and those are
very very difficult to grow in the laboratory. So a scientist named John Enders
got an idea that what if we tried using cells, They are easy to
grow in the laboratory, and the cells he chose were fetal stem cells,
so in other words, from an aborted fetus, the stem cells which grow
very readily in the laboratory and they stay alive pretty much forever. He took
ground up spinal cords from children who died of polio and added them to fetal
cell cultures and claimed that this was growing the virus successfully and used it to
manufacture vaccines and actually won a Nobel prize. And after that process was complete,
he applied the same kind of process to measles in a famous paper in
nineteen fifty four, And in that paper he did not actually claim that the
experiment where he drew grew a cell culture of foreign cells. In that experiment,
he used monkey kidney cells that were genetically modified in a commercially available cell
line, so any laboratory around the world could buy these cells and do this
experiment. And he added secretions from measle patients and put some antibiotics in the
petri dish as well, and some of those cultures ended up showing some damage
to the cells, which he called cytopathic effects or CPEs. And he also
actually did a culture where he did not add anything from a measles patient and
got the same result damage to the culture and CPS. And even in the
paper that was published he stated, you know that there must be other factors
in the speriment that caused the CPE in that control experiment, And he didn't
make any claims that that experiment proved the existence of measles. In fact,
he said that what happens in vitro, just like you mentioned in a laboratory,
does not inform us about what's happening in the body. Oh, that's
not science yet, Well it is. I would call it observation, because
you're right, it didn't the scientific method showed that those cytopathic effects were due
to the experiment and not due to the measles because they occurred when no measles
was in the sample. But there perhaps are still things that could be learned
if there really was a virus in that experiment. It's just that they never
showed one. But what happened after that is that other scientists use that procedure
and started claiming that it showed a new virus, that it discovered a new
virus if there were cytopathic effects, and they ignored the control experiment where there
was no virus, or they didn't ignore it exactly, but in their experiments
they left that part out, so in other words, they didn't do control
experiments, so it was not scientific. They also didn't have an independent variable
because they just added body fluids or tissues that were diseased to the experiment.
They never separated out a virus from those body fluids or tissues because when they
looked for that in the past, they were never able to find it.
But essentially, what's happening is that if someone is sick, and let's say
that it actually was due to a virus, then essentially that person's body would
be the cell culture for that virus to reproduce. And it should be very
easy to simply take out that part of the body and find tons of virus
because it's been reproducing. If it didn't reproduce and spread around, it couldn't
make you sick, So you'd have so in other words, to do the
experiment. It would be very easy and should be you know, readily show
the presence of this invasive particle. But those experiments when they were done,
didn't show that. And now they're not no longer done because they have this
other simulation in the laboratory where and it's been shown that you can get the
same results without adding any biological material at all. You just put in the
antibiotics and the cell culture medium with reduced nutrition, which is the same protocol
they use, and you can get cytopathic effects. Wow. So this doctor
Kaufman in a sense of you know, the subatomic models, you know,
and and so we've had the Neils Neil Bores model of the atom, and
then we've moved on to quantum mechanics, and these are abstractions that people they
make some observations and they say, well, you know, if if this
were true, because they can't see it, you know, that's the key
thing. They can't They can't observe a virus there, and so they're coming
up with these abstractions to try to describe put is there at a subatomic level?
Is that accurate or would you disagree with that? Is that an abstractions
to try to figure out what is going on with disease transmission, but they
can't really can't really see it or prove it right. Yeah, So you
know what I think you're You're on the right track. And what I've observed
within you know, the fields of science or so called science and technology,
is that sometimes we can make observations about things and we can describe them so
well that we can predict the behavior of things in the future. And I
think a great example of this is with respect to Isaac Newton and gravity.
So, as the story goes, Newton observed an apple falling to the ground,
and then he began to measure things and you know, and observe things
carefully, and then he was able to come up with an equation that accurately
described and predicted the you know, how fast the apple would fall to the
ground, And then he saw that other things also fall at the same rate
of acceleration, right, And that's how we got the acceleration due to gravity.
So we can do experiments where we drop things and we can plug in
the numbers to the equation, and we can get pretty accurate predictions about what
happens when we drop that thing. However, it doesn't tell us anything at
all about what makes it drop. So, in other words, the cause
why is it dropping? The equation doesn't speak to that. Now, we
they invented the word gravity to describe that, but no one could show what
gravity was, and it was assumed to be a force all of these years,
right, But then in the last ten years, through some crazy experiments
done with satellites, now the scientists claim that it's not a force, that
it's a disruption of the space time continuum. And I don't think they can
really prove that either. I think that's just another hypothesis. Right, But
the equations that I described earlier are still useful because we can predict behavior.
So in chemistry, the model of the atom it has never been directly observed.
There's only you inferential or circumstantial evidence from which one explanation has been put
forth as the model of the atom, But there are many other explanations that
could be put forth that would explain those experimental findings just is easily. But
based on how we look at the atom and the periodic table and the atomic
numbers and such, we can use this arbitrary system of nomenclature and of rules,
and we can go to the laboratory and we can synthesize chemicals and do
chemical reactions that we can predict with some accuracy. So it's useful to have
that system, but it really doesn't tell us the true nature of the atom
or of matter. We only have, you know, one possible model for
that, but we have no conclusive evidence. And you know, it's a
similar the reason why is right that we don't have the ability to observe things
at such a small scale that we can see what it's really made of,
or at least that's one hypothesis about why, you know, we don't know
it exactly. And so with that, because as we're talking about observation,
let's talk a little bit about the PCR thing, Karrie Molis's PCR because you
know that is they talk about that incessantly as you know, well, this
is our observation. At what are they really seeing with that? Well,
you've got to understand that if you want to identify a co variant, because
really what we're talking about is something that represents something else, right, Like
we have a fingerprint. A fingerprint is not a human being, but it's
a part of a human being. And we know if we see a fingerprint,
a human being has been there. But we can identify the human being
unless we already analyze their fingerprint and have something to match it to. So
the PCR test, now it's not really it's not really a test per se.
It's actually a manufacturing technology because it takes some starting material real and makes
more of that. It replicates it, right, makes copies of it,
so there's more more quantity of that stuff, and that's really what it does.
But it can only make these quantities of something that's a small piece of
something, and that piece of something would be a piece of genetic material,
right that is broken off a larger piece. So in order to say that
if we find this piece of genetic material, First we have to say,
all right, we've identified the organism, and we've we've characterized all the genetic
material in this organism, and we've compared it with all the genetic material of
other organisms, and we know this piece here is unique. It doesn't occur
in any other part of nature, and it's only coin and we know that
it comes from this particular organism. Right, we can We can do this
for humans or other organisms that we've mapped their entire genome by like taking a
cell from a human body, mapping out, you know, every sequence of
DNA in the nucleus and the mitochondria, and then you know, putting those
all in a database, and that that's been done. Took a long time,
but it's been done. So if you were to develop a genetic test
for a piece of the genetic material of a virus, first you'd have to
discover the virus. You'd have to extract the genetic material from it and sequence
it in its entirety, then compare it to all the other known sequences and
pick out a fragment of it that's unique, and then you could develop a
test, and then you'd have to validate it by comparing it to you know,
so in other words, you would have let's say a hundred people that
were sick, and you would demonstrate the virus in those people through being able
to purify it out and visualize it from those people. Then you would know,
out of the hundred people, how many have the virus and don't.
And then you would do this you know, proposed test for this gymenetic fragment,
and you would get the results and see how many times you found the
unique fragment, and you would compare it to the people that actually whether they
had the actual virus or not in their body, and if it matched up
one hundred percent of the time, it would be an amazing test with a
zero you know error rate. But in reality, there are no tests which
are that good. And you know, like for example, if you were
going to validate a pregnancy test, you would you know, do the test
and then you'd wait nine months and see if a baby came out and if
your tests showed the presence of something and a baby came out at the and
you'd know it was good, right, and you could you could even do
this for fun with a pendulum, like you know, if the pendulum swings,
you know, side to side or up and down. It could predict
pregnancy, and you could test it by just waiting nine months and see if
it's accurate, and that's called validation. And it's never been done with the
PCR test for this alleged virus or for any other alleged virus. So there's
even if it was a good test in detecting this particular genetic fragment, there's
no way to know if this genetic fragment actually came from a virus or not.
We don't know the origin of it. It's they've never taken this virus
and pulled the genetic material out of it to determine what sequences are in it,
because they've never actually found the particle. Now there are pictures where they
point to something and say that's the particle, but they don't do any experiment
or test to demonstrate that that particle has any of the properties of a virus.
So we saw this. Faucci's first PCR game was still when Kerry was
still alive. Kerry Mousis is still alive, and he said, you can't
prove that there's that HIV is the cause of age using my test, and
he had this fight with him all that time. But of course just before
this thing rolled out he died. Kerry Mollis died a few months before Faucci
rolled this stuff out. I've always found that fascinating, the fact that even
though he was the one who invented it, and even though he won a
Nobel Prize for it, he could not ever get and tried it over and
over again to set up something where he was going to debate Faucci. Facci
was always able to avoid that, always able to keep the spotlight on himself
and never have to explain what the person who vented the test said was a
misuse of his test. Yeah. Well, there's no reason for Fauci would
have nothing to gain, would have had nothing to gain from fading Kerry Mollis,
because he knew that he was, you know, exploiting this technology for
commercial gain. Yes, that's right. It's always a key when somebody doesn't
want to show you their data and they don't want to have a debate,
it always tells you something about their confidence level of what they're telling everybody.
But the guy was an amazing is even still as he's still doing it,
an amazing con man. And so we have this PCR test. As you
point out, we don't really know when they're testing for something we don't really
know, Well, is that connected to what we're seeing here? Right?
Is that that's so they're magnifying this with their cycle threshold of forty, they're
magnifying it over a trillion times. But what are they even looking for?
Is there any connection between what they're looking for and a disease? There's shutting
people down who have no symptoms, right, Yeah, you're right, they've
never established a connection. In fact, the CDC described how they validated the
PCR test, and what they did is they made a synthetic strand of genetic
material that matched the one that the test was designed for, and they made
up solutions of different concentrations and they and they put it through the PCR.
So all they showed was that you can use this test and amplify a man
made piece of genetic material. Had nothing to do with a virus or any
sick patients at all. They weren't even part of the experiment. But the
reason I think that PCR is the preferred choice for these tests is, you
know, one because it can be very simply modified to any sequence. So
it's already there. It's already a protocol and a machine. Even have machines
that have automated protocols that run this. You put the sample and add the
ingredients, and it does everything if you program it correctly, so it takes
you could All you do is put in a different sequence and make a different
primer, and then you can adapt it to any sequence that you say is
from anything with no R and D needed. So it's very convenient. And
then the other thing is that there are many parameters that you can adjust to
a PCR protocol to change the percent of results that are positive or negative.
So if you want to tweak the parameters such that eighty percent of samples comeback
positive, you can do that. If you want to make it ten percent,
you can do that. So, in other words, by manipulating it,
you could give the appearance that there was a surge of cases or that
there was an improvement in the number of cases. When you say tweaking it
is that's something that's different from the cycle threshold, how many times they go
through and double. Well, the cycle threshold is only one way that you
can manipulate the outcomes, So you certainly that is a very potent way,
because each time you do one cycle means that you're making one copy of your
starting sample. So if you start out with just one copy of this specific
genetic sequence, after doing one cycle, you'll end up with two copies,
and after the second cycle you'll go from two to four. So each time
it doubles. Now each time that you double, there are errors that occur,
so it doesn't copy each piece perfectly. It copies it perfectly some of
the time and then also makes some errors where so, like think about it,
if you were doing this with rewriting a sentence. Someone originally wrote the
sentence, and then you have to copy the sentence a hundred times. One
of those times you might substitute an E for an A in there, and
then that error might get perpetuated because if you copy that E correctly, it's
still a mistake from the original, right, it didn't exist in the original.
And that's what happens as you do more and more copies, and the
cycle threshold is generally the guidelines say it should be under twenty. So under
twenty doublings to get accurate results without introducing so much error that you could essentially
get anything in your final sample, because the mistakes multiply and add up over
time, Like you get a mistake here, then there's a mistake and the
mistake, and a mistake and the mistake and this mistake, and you get
something that is totally different. It was never in your sample to start with.
So that's one way you can fudge the results. The other way is
that you set an arbitrary threshold of how much UH material you made that you
call positive. So in other words, there could be ten pcograms of it
in your cycle forty uh you know, fortieth cycle and you call that's a
positive, or it could be one hundred pikeograms that you call positive. And
it's totally arbitrary where you set that threshold of positive and negative. It's not
like an on off switch. It's more it's like a dial and you just
pick a point in the dial that's positive and negative. It's kind of like
asking the question, you know, at what temperature is does it go from
cold to hot? Right? There's you can you can make one up,
but there's no real answer, and so that changes it. And then the
other thing is that you typically dilute your sample before you put it into the
PCR machine. So depending on how much you dilute your sample. If you
dilute it more, then they'll be less in the final results and more likely
a negative result. And if you dilute it less, there'll be more in
your starting sample and more likely a positive result. So by adjusting those parameters,
you could easily change the number of positive results you get when you apply
it to a population of samples. Wow. And so you know they've got
a model and an abstraction, and then they level. You know, you
look at the PCR test in all the different ways that you can define what
you're looking for and how much you can magnify it in the errors that are
induced into that, and then they come up with a variance. Now,
since we don't have anything that's tied to something that is absolutely real, it's
kind of an abstraction of model, as you point out, as a digital
simulation. What is any of this model, this, any of this very
stuff? Me right, Well, now this gets into the whole area of
the genome sequencing. And now you know, earlier I kind of described how
we got the human genome, right that we took the genetic material, the
DNA out of human cells, out of their nuclei and mitochondria, and then
we we sequenced that genetic material, and that genetic material only, right,
we started with just human cells. Now, since they've never actually found a
virus or separated it and purified it, so you just have a test tube
with only virus particles, they were never able to take the genetic material out
of it. So what they do is they take the tissue or the fluid
from a sick person, and they generally like so with COVID. For example,
the Stars, the alleged Stars Kobe two virus, they did this with
just one single patient, and of course they said that they had the virus
because of a PCR test which was developed without ever finding the virus in the
first place. So it's sort of it's a circular reasoning, right, why
as the virus is in there, Well, we assume the virus is in
there. We assume that if the virus is in there, the PCR will
be positive. So we do the PCR and it's positive. So that means
the virus is in there, even though we never demonstrated it, right,
And then that means that the genetic material from the virus is also in there,
and so what they do is they take that fluid and they pull out
every fragment of genetic material that's in there. But they don't know where any
of those fragments are from. Like they assume that some of them are from
a virus. They know that some of them must be from the human,
but they don't know where else they might come from. Because you know,
we have bacteria in us, we have fungi, we have parasites. Even
if just if we breathe in the air, there's genetic material in the air,
and so like if you take fluid of the lungs, whatever you just
breathe in in the last half hour is going to be in that sample.
So they have this mixture of unknown material and they're all little fragments. And
you know, little fragments are redundant because there's only four letters, right,
So there's only so many ten letter words you can make with four letters,
and so when you have small fragments, they're present everywhere in nature, like
every organism has it because you know, you've got trillions or quadrillions of these
letters in your vocabulary. So they make every ten letter word there is in
there, right, So they're not not specific, but a sequence all these
little fragments, and then this is where the computer simulation comes in. They
put in all that data into the computer and the computer tries to out of
nothing, put together a genome that is from this virus that they've never shown
to be in the experiment, and it comes up with like a million solutions.
In fact, for the stars Kobe two experiment, they actually used two
separate computer programs because they couldn't trust that one would give them the answer they
wanted. And between those two programs there were over a million results of possible
theoretical computer simulation genomes in that sample. And they basically also had an assumption
that the length of the genome would be around either twenty or thirty thousand bases
long. So out of the million solutions, there was some solutions that were
around that length, and they just picked the longest one of those. I
thought the epidemiological models were bad enough. This is way way beyond all the
stuff that's done by the Imperial College of London. It truly is amazing.
So it really is really is amazing. And the thing is that so few
people can read these papers and understand what they're doing, or take the time
to read them that you know, no one knows they're doing this little magic
trick where they're giving you a computer generated result, not something that's in nature.
And so then they have an even better trick. So once they basically
publish that and said boom, this is the genome of SARS Kobe two and
they entered it in the database that anyone can look at in the world.
Then the companies that make the technology that does this kind of sequencing it's called
next generation sequencing, and it's a you know, very big business. They
developed a protocol using PCR where you could essentially, you know, apply the
template of that genome and find it in any other sample. So it's kind
of like a rigged game because the PCR primers make up more than half of
the entire genome and and what and then they do that, and it's like
a recipe that labs around the world can just follow this procedure, you know,
step one, step two, step three, and at the end they
get this result. And then the result is supposed to be represent the genome
of the virus in their patient sample. And the thing is they could never
replicate the exact finding. So every time they did this they didn't get the
same exact genome that they found in the first experiment because it wasn't real,
so they couldn't get the same results from from repeating the experiment. In fact,
that's one of the scientific principles that invalidates the results. If you can't
repeat the experiment and get the same results, then the original experiment is flawed.
Yeah, but instead of interpreting it the scientific way like that, they
make up the story that the virus mutated and our results are close but not
exactly the same. So we have a genetic mutated version of the virus,
and we'll call that a variant. Wow. Wow, And how many variants
have they invented here? There have been millions, millions that they've invented by
this. And then you know, the Public Health Agency is like the CDC.
They then make a classification of these variants as being you know, dangerous
or threatening or not. And the way they do this is even more ridiculous
because they take these computer simulated sequences and for like the spike protein gene,
for example, the S gene, because they say that part of this sequence
makes the spike protein, which has also never been shown to come from nature.
And then they make a synthetic sequence of the spike protein gene that they
say is from this new variant, and they transsect it into a bacterial cell
culture, and so the bacterial cells make this gene for the spike protein,
supposedly, and then they add antibodies to the petri dish that are supposed to
be the antibodies that protect us from the infection, but there's never been any
studies that prove that. And based on how the antibodies bind with the bacteria,
they make a judgment of how dangerous this virus is. Wow. So
they don't like follow the people who had this sequence in their sample and say
how do they do? Yeah, exactly, They do this once again,
another laboratory simulation in vitro, without anything resembling nature in the experiment. But
then they draw conclusions and then they make policy based on those experiments. Wow.
And so we have their existing vaccines which we don't see anybody getting any
better from, and you still have people who are testing positive for Let me
ask you this, I've always wondered if since they're coming up with a sequence
and telling people this is what you're going to test for, and then saying
you know that there's you know, we're going to create this sequences as part
of our vaccine. I think we're going to get your body to create this.
Are they also injecting what they're looking for to some degree? The other
is that something else is another factor here besides all the magnification and all the
rest of the things that they can do. Are they actually what they're injecting
people with. Is that another piece of circular logic that they're going to inject
you with, something that they're going to look at to see if they can
find that. Well, there are many logical errors in the approach with these
alleged vaccines. And you know, obviously, if you haven't proven that there's
a microorganism causing the disease, if you develop a therapeutic based on getting rid
of a microorganism, it couldn't possibly be successful. Like, in order to
develop a way to help address a problem, you have to know what's causing
the problem, right, So there's no way a vaccine could be useful.
And also because these vaccines were allowed to be sold, right, they were
never a proved or at least they only until after the pandemic. They some
of them might have gotten approval from an official government body, but they were
allowed to be sold under an emergency exception right right. EUA is what it's
called Emergency Use Authorization in the United States. It has different names in other
countries, but that's all over the world. That's the only way it could
be used, and that allows the manufacturer to change the ingredients and to not
disclose things because it's a work in progress and it's like the emergency is so
dire that we will take the risk, right That's what it states in the
law. Essentially, so they didn't test properly to even know what exactly these
shots do to people, right Like, they didn't even test to say,
well, if we give it to people, can we detect this spike protein
in their body? They didn't do that research. There have been a couple
of small studies that independent researchers have tried to look at that after the fact.
But the manufacturer like, that's the most basic thing. You know,
you design this thing, it's supposed to make a protein and the recipient and
then you never test for that protein and the recipient. I know they have.
We've had some information come out. Would you agree with it or not?
That in some of the animal tests they found concentration of the spike proteins
and ovaries and in the spleen. Would you disagree with that that they did
not find the spike protein. Yeah, well those those were not spike proteins,
those were the lipid nano particles. So they did what they call,
you know, pharmacokinetic studies, which is you know, required for any pharmaceutical
and that's basically, what does your body do to this drug or substance when
you put it in there? Right? Does it stay around sound in the
body? Does it go in the urine, does it go in the stool,
does the liver processes? Those kind of questions. So I believe it
was. Fizer released a document in Japan that described the pharmacokinetic studies of the
lipid nanoparticles. Now that's the little containers that allegedly contain the mRNA okay,
and those lipid nanoparticles were shown to distribute to all locations in the body,
but they were highly concentrated, as you pointed out, in the genital,
the genital regions, especially the women female genitals like the uterus, the ovaries,
and also in the brain tissue and in several other organs, so that
that was found. So if there was actually mRNA that could cause your cells
to make spike protein, it would be delivered to all those locations in your
body. But they did not do experiments where they you know, they measured
spike protein in those organs. But I'm aware of I see. Okay,
well that's interesting because that's I've seen it reported that way. But they're looking
at the lipid nanoparticles. And what do we know about the lipid nanoparticles and
their health effects? Well, we know they're they're fairly toxic. There are
toxicology studies looking at these things. And they could also be called hydrogels,
by the way, that's a different technological name for them. But yeah,
these things are definitely not good for us. But you know, we don't
know the each version of it is slightly different. It's a proprietary chemical,
so you know, the version of it that's in the current vaccines, you
know that hasn't been tested directly that I'm aware of. But in general,
there's a significant toxo toxicity just from these lipid nanoparticles themselves. Well, it
certainly is amazing, and of course we know that there's something up with this
as you you know, when we you see people members of the European Parliament
and say well, we want to see the contract and other things like this,
and they get nothing but redacted documents. Back, we know that Fizer
was leaning on various countries who have gone public with the fact that they wanted
additional protection over and above of what they would have normally had with an emergency
experimental vaccine. They wanted protection about negligence and manufacturing and all the rest of
the stuff. And they even wanted to have assets that were outside of that
country that they would be able to get to. So there's this all these
different smoking guns. But that's a whole nother level. And of course what
you're talking about here also gets back to the baseline understanding of what is a
virus and what is a vaccine, And these are abstractions. I've had a
lot of people who have sent me information in the past. I've never gotten
into it much. I just looked at it's like, yo, that that
may not actually be an accurate model. And certainly from the way that you're
describing it, it looks like an endless loop of circular logic that is just
going around and round again. And what comes out of the end of that
is a big pile of money, I guess is what we get out of
that circular logic. I mean, even before COVID vaccines were you know,
a multi billion dollar industry in the United States, I mean really second to
cancer treatment. But the COVID vaccines were the best selling drugs ever in the
history of the pharmaceutical industry. So this was a huge windfall. And all
the companies that made testing kits as well, huge huge windfall. Even you
know, people even made money all sorts of ways. They bought you know,
cheap masks and other ppe from China and resold it, you know,
double and tripling the price. It was a real boon for anyone who wanted
to uh, you know, corrupt themselves and join on the medical bandwagon of
you know, medical fraud to bring that about. So it's you know,
this is not going to stop because these profits, right uh are too sweet
to pass up for that industry. And I'm sure you know what you were
talking about with contracts and such. You know, all the governments entered into
those contracts voluntarily, and they even provided blanket immunity from product liability for the
manufacturers, and you know, so really there they are at fault just as
much, you know, as the drug companies for perpetrating this poison injections upon
us and cause all of the morbidity and more reality that resulted. And you
know, the vaccine industry recognized decades ago that their products were toxic and because
they were getting sued and they were getting sued and losing so much, that
vaccines were not profitable. And so they basically told the government, they gave
them an ultimatum. They said, if you want us to keep making vaccines,
you have to take away our liability. And it's unprecedented. There's no
other a product manufacturer that is free from product liability. You know, if
I manufacture a gas fireplace and it explodes and kills you and your family,
like I have to pay. But if I manufacture a vaccine and it kills
you and your family, I just keep selling it to more people. And
you know that that's what has resulted. And of course they find more and
more profitable ways over time, and they keep expanding the number of vaccines,
the vaccine recommendations in their government partnerships, etc. Etc. And even if
you don't want to question the validity of germ theory as a cause of disease,
which is clearly not scientifically proven. You can just look at the actual
data. So, for example, for every illness that was said to have
disappeared because of vaccines, if you go and look at the number of cases
year by year and look out when the vaccine was first invented and when people
actually took the vaccine, you'll see that the disease went away first and then
the vaccine came. And that's in every situation that there's data available for.
You can find that. And of course also the way that they test and
approve new vaccines is not the way you would think at all. So for
example, if I was gonna if I invented a new measles vaccine and needed
and wanted to get approval for it, you would think that I would have
to give it to like a thousand kids, and then have a thousand kids
I don't give it to, and follow all of them, you know,
through age ten, and see how many get measles in the group that got
the shot, and how many got measles in the group that didn't, and
then compare it and see if it really prevented measles. But those experiments have
never ever been done with any vaccine. Wow, and that's what we've been
told that they used to do. That they used to have, you know,
and I've talked about this. I said, look at what they used
to do, and FACCI said, yeah, we're going to get rid of
this decade long protocol. You know. They would have their phase one,
which they would have a small group of volunteers and they would look for toxicity,
they would say, and then they would expand it to phase two and
they would have people who, you know, if it was a therapeutic,
somebody who actually has a condition, so that see if it worked, and
then expand it in phase three. But for vaccines, they would give it
to a bunch of people in phase two and then let them circulate around for
a long period of time and say, well, how many people came down
with the disease that we're vaccinating for and our control group that wasn't vaccinated or
had a placebo versus the other one. And then with phase three they would
expand it. That's what we were always told, and that would be a
ten year protocol. So that's not what they were doing. Then right,
that's not what they do. So they still have the same you know,
process, but the experiment they did was not looking to see if the disease
developed. And you know, if you were going to do that, you'd
have to conduct the trial for a substantial length of time, right, because
the many of those illnesses that the incidents is very low. You might even
need a very large group of people to test it in. But what they
do is is that they give it to experimental subject and then a week later
or two weeks later, they test their blood for antibodies, and if they
have you know, the antibodies that they designate as meaning immunity from that disease,
they say the vaccine is good. Yeah. The only problem is is
that they've never demonstrated that those antibodies actually mean anything. They're only theoretical.
And I heard that. I remember when Factor was talking about that and saying,
yeah, we know this works because we observe the antibodies with this COVID
thing. I was under the impression that they had always been doing it,
you know, for ten year period or something like that, and that they
just cut that off and then looked for the antibodies with this particular one.
But you're saying they've been doing it that way for a long time, right,
Yeah. Yeah, I mean for as long as I can remember,
for as long as you know, the oldest clinical trial I've ever seen use
that methodology. Wow. Wow. So we've now gotten to the point where
they can just invent out of thin air, not just viruses, but variants
of viruses. Uh, they can go in and who knows if they've they
can say now we're going to do an improve vaccine. We don't know if
they've even bothered to change it, you know, just slap a new label
on it, like you used to see with the you know, particular washing
machine soap. You know it's it's no one improved how I don't know how
it's any different from you, but you know it's got it's got sunlight in
it or something solum is it. That's one of the well they you know,
look, they they do make new recipes. And the reason why you
know this is because there are different patterns of toxicity. Yes, right,
So I mean, for example, with the flu vaccines, what we saw
was mostly neurologic issues like gyan beret, which is a type of paralysis with
hepatitis B. We've seen sudden death and encephal phlitis with the you know,
covid vaccines. We've seen also sudden death, but we've also seen blood clots.
We've also seen myocarditis, right, and that's pretty specific, right,
No, No other vaccines that I know of are associated with myocarditis. And
that's a very strong connection. And even the mainstream admits to that. They
downplay it a lot, but they admit to it. And then you've also
had neurologic conditions including seizures develop as well as other paralytic events like Bell's palsy.
So you know, maybe they took some of the stuff that was in
the flu shot which caused that neurological toxicity. But then there clearly are novel
patterns, so there must be you know, different things in there that cause
different toxicities to develop in the recipients, and that that's a clue. You
know that they're using a unique recipe, but do and tell us what exactly
is in it? Right, And also we know that, so let me
ask you have we've seen different different pathologies from these supposedly reworked covid vaccines are
supposed to address these different variants because you know, like you're talking about,
we had different neurological diseases. I remember pandemics that Fauci and Slowe did and
they had narcolepsy and catalepsy was very well documented in some Scandinavian countries for young
kids. So, but have we seen that, you know, from the
the the injection for one variant or the other. You know, they've now
said, oh, we got a new vaccine that's coming out, but that
they've done that already, right for the supposedly reformulated COVID vaccines, that we've
seen different pathologies with that, right, Well, you know, it's really
difficult to tell because a lot of this information is suppressed. But you know,
and I haven't looked at it, you know this recently myself, But
certainly one could go to the the database you know, in your country and
you know, look at the reports and see, if you know, knowing
the date when they change to a different formulation, you know, was there
any difference in the pattern, And it'll it'll come out eventually if there is.
But it is very difficult to get the stuff out of these databases,
out of airs and out of d meds and allists of stuff and then they
play games and let me ask you this. Well, we're talking about the
different labs and other things like that, we're talking about this abstraction. One
of the things that things that's been a real stickler with me. I hate
to see the people who are going back and making a big issue out of
the Wuhand lab. I see that as misdirection. How do you see that
as people talking about the Wuhand lab and focusing on that and focusing on China.
Do you see that as a misdirection? Yeah? Absolutely, I mean,
you know, I don't mean to deny that. Uh. You know,
there are government scientists who are doing all sorts of unscrupulous things. I'm
not sure that happens all the time. Yeah, And we didn't have cases
of that, especially in twenty fourteen, and they were they were doing things
with the known pathogens that were bacteriological and stuff and bringing them in and losing
track of them, you know, letting them escape the lab and so well,
we did have a history of that, but with this particular thing with
a Wuhan lab and with COVID specifically, and now you've got so many people
who are now making that the focus rather than the vaccine, and that's the
thing that really bothers me. Yeah, well, I agree, because there's
simply no evidence to support it, and you know, the only credible evidence
of something like that would be evidence that it they're actually affected people in the
world, you know, But where where is the experiment showing that there's some
manufactured, you know, bioweapon. You know. The other thing that's really
important about this is that you know, because if you if you drill down
and at the evidence, you'll see that, you know, disease causing viruses
don't exist in nature. So if they don't exist in nature, then how
can you make a synthetic version of one, right? You can't right that,
so you'd have to basically have a completely novel technology. And you know,
in addition, there's no natural model for contagion. Like we all grow
up and we're told that diseases are contagious and it can pass from person to
person. But that's been tested many, many times in very well done scientific
experiments with control groups and everything, and they've never ever demonstrated even a single
case where a disease was transmitted from one person to another. So if there's
no model for that in nature, then you can't, you know, how
do you make a technology do that? It's very very challenging, Like,
you know, I spend some time thinking about this, and the only thing
I could come up with would be making some kind of like robotic devices or
nanobots that you know, could go and inject things into you or get things
in your body in some other way. But I don't see how you could
make it spread from person to person. Yeah, it is amazing to see
all the different circular logic, as you pointed out, and how this is
a model abstraction and we seem to be rapidly moving in that direction in so
many different ways, whether you're talking about this or you know, I guess
this is kind of like the chat GPT of medicine. All of the all
of the climate arguments about climate catastrophe are all also based on computer models,
and you can go back in time to the earlier models and then see what
really happened and see how they were totally wrong every single time. But yeah,
and they don't have a database driven by it. I agree, And
they don't have a database that is consistent and reliable for comparison of warming.
But I remember it was just I think it was last year. Uh,
and it made headlines. Oh, look, the temperature just jumped by forty
degrees on the you know, the Arctic and the Antarctic, and then it
went back to normal, and people looked at what is going on? They
said, well, we don't actually have any thermometers up there, We've got
computer models, and the computer models flaked out on us. And so that's
a really that's really key. People don't realize how much of what we think
is observational science is done with computer models and garbage and garbage out, you
know, and and and you know that that was one glimpse that we had
of the climate uh panic. But as you as your presentation points out,
it truly is amazing what we're seeing with all of this medical stuff, and
very alarming because it's being used for political purposes and to lock us down,
as the climate climate stuff is as well, isn't it. Well there you
know are many So if if you're going to truly be a scientist and investigate
nature and try to understand how nature works, right, and illness is part
of nature, we can all observe illness, right, I'm not denying that
we get sick that's you know, obvious. But in order to approach that,
right, it's kind of a two part pursuit. The first part is
we have to come up with some idea about how it works in the first
part, and then the second part is we can design a scientific experiment to
test that idea. Right. So, but people confuse these two and they
think the first part where you just observe and come up with an idea about
a hypothesis, a guess, you know, a reasoned guess about what causes
the phenomenon. So epidemiology, which you mentioned earlier right now, that is
what public health departments do, and there are you know, academic departments at
universities that study public health. They apply statistics and it has the air of
being scientific, but it's purely observation because all they're doing is they're observing people
and they're saying, some people are sick, some people are healthy, some
people die, what age do they die? Do more people die this year
than last year? Why is that? What's causing more people to die?
That's epidemiology. You can't draw any conclusions about what's causing changes in people's health
from epidemiology at all. All you can do is you can observe phenomenon and
say, oh, my gosh, in Seattle last year, twice as many
people had lung cancer than in Detroit last year. And you'd be like,
oh my god, maybe there's something in Seattle causing people to develop lung cancer.
And then you can say, all right, I'm gonna you know,
I'm gonna look further at that, and I find out that oh, more
people smoke in Seattle than in Detroit. The there's more smog in Seattle than
in Detroit. So I say, oh, could these things be the reason
why there's more lung cancer? And then in order to determine that, I
could go and take air samples of the smog and expose those too, you
know, mice in laboratory and have another group of mice that don't get exposed,
and say, do any of the mice develop lung cancer? Right?
So would you say that, then I can know that that that those substances
may have caused the lung cancer. But that's a scientific experiment, right,
and not the epidemiology. So we confuse the observation with understanding, and a
computer simulation is only a way of observing and coming up with hypotheses, and
sometimes they can be ridiculous because you can fudge computer models to get almost any
result that you want, but it can be useful if you don't know where
to go. You make a model and you and then you come up with
some hypotheses. Then you can do an experiment and see if that's really true.
But it never substitute for a real life measurement I understand. So,
yeah, when we see a cluster of a particular type of disease or something
like that, again we can identify that, but it's another issue in terms
of actually identifying the cause of that, and that's that's where the real the
question comes in. Thank you so much for joining us, sir, And
how can people best find you? Where can they find Yeah, please go
to my web say at Andrew Kaufman MD dot com. That's k a U
F m Ann and do great access everything there. Well, very interesting.
Thank you so much for your research and it's been a pleasure of having you
on. And let me just thank on rock Fan, thank you, Karrius
Rex, thank you very much. And Dystopian Distant. We will try to
get John Rappaport on. I've had him on before. I haven't had him
on. Since I've had my show, we're trying to get in touch with
him again. Thank you so much, thank you. David Nights Show is
a critical thinking super spreader. If you've been exposed to logic by listening to
The David Nights Show, please do your part and try not to spread it.
Financial support or simply telling us there's about the show causes this dangerous information
to spread. Father people have to trust me, I mean, trust the
science. Will you ask take your vaccine? Don't ask questions using free speech
to free minds. It's The David Night Show.