Very interesting take on the virus issue. Not new. But worth a revisit. Dr Andrew Kaufman takes a good look, and says his piece.

 

I don't agree with him 100%.But hey! That's life.

 

 

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Very interesting take on the virus issue. Not new. But worth a revisit. Dr Andrew Kaufman takes a good look, and says his piece.

 

I don't agree with him 100%.But hey! That's life.

Here's the real story.... done by actual medical researchers with training in virology .... not just a psychiatrist with only a bit of general knowledge of infectious diseases.

The details that define the difference between exosomes and virus particles are clearly explained here:

https://youtu.be/UY4pJaGJgkA?t=1701

 

 

Kaufman tries to denigrate PCR testing that shows the presence of COVID virus but conveniently ignores testing safeguards that destroy his theory.  Here's the details of how PCR testing proves that the results are indeed accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KoLnIwoZKU

 

Don't take your medical advice from a deceitful AN poster on his second (at least) screen name after getting booted from his first.

 

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Here's the real story.... done by actual medical researchers with training in virology .... not just a psychiatrist with only a bit of general knowledge of infectious diseases.

The details that define the difference between exosomes and virus particles are clearly explained here:

https://youtu.be/UY4pJaGJgkA?t=1701

 

 

Kaufman tries to denigrate PCR testing that shows the presence of COVID virus but conveniently ignores testing safeguards that destroy his theory.  Here's the details of how PCR testing proves that the results are indeed accurate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KoLnIwoZKU

 

Don't take your medical advice from a deceitful AN poster on his second (at least) screen name after getting booted from his first.

 

Looked at the vid. I do not agree with their definition of a virus, or its ability to reproduce.

 

"DISCLAIMER: Nothing said in this vlog-podcast should be considered to be final scientific facts, as we primarily introduce hypotheses and thoughts about the topic, even though these are educated."

 

Not yet watched the second one.

 

Get into nature. You'll not regret it.

A virus is a make believe, non existent concept conjured up by sorcerers to trick those who are illiterate into approving the self mutilation and poisoning of themselves.

 

The Holy Bible is a critical tool required to understand and maneuver the invisible spectrum of belief.  It teaches you to sacrifice poison beliefs and only adopt truthful beliefs.  This trickery has been going on far too long.  It is easy to avoid with proper education and spiritual training.

 

Those ignorant to the viral curse require immediate remedial training to avoid further ensnarement in the trap.

On 10/24/2025 at 12:15 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

Very interesting take on the virus issue. Not new. But worth a revisit. Dr Andrew Kaufman takes a good look, and says his piece.

 

I don't agree with him 100%.But hey! That's life.

 

 

Virus. 

On 10/24/2025 at 11:15 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

What is a virus?

A virus consist of genetic material, dna or rna, enclosed in a protein coat called a capsid. Some also have an outer lipid envelope.

On 10/24/2025 at 11:15 AM, Stiddle Mump said:

Dr Andrew Kaufman takes a good look

 

forensic psychiatrist

 

Bwahhahhahahhahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 10/24/2025 at 5:42 PM, Stiddle Mump said:

Looked at the vid. I do not agree with their definition of a virus, or its ability to reproduce.

 

But, of course, you don't have enough science background which would allow you (and not somebody's opinion that you fancy) to explain why you are right and many thousands of researchers are wrong.

9 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

But, of course, you don't have enough science background which would allow you (and not somebody's opinion that you fancy) to explain why you are right and many thousands of researchers are wrong.

I have the evidence Sir. 

 

Ask the question; and I'll answer it as best I can.

Viruses are not considered truly alive because they lack the cellular machinery to reproduce on their own, they must hijack a host cell’s resources to make copies of themselves. A virus attaches to the cell surface, injects its genetic material, and forces the cell to produce more virus particles.

1 minute ago, novacova said:

Viruses are not considered truly alive because they lack the cellular machinery to reproduce on their own, they must hijack a host cell’s resources to make copies of themselves. A virus attaches to the cell surface, injects its genetic material, and forces the cell to produce more virus particles.

Viruses - if they exist at all - are only evident when the cell dies. They are cell debris. Probably formed in the shape they are to enable trouble-free cell elimination from the body.

 

There is a school of thought, in the New Biology Camp, that reckon they are simply tiny gas bubbles. Others say they are exosomes.

 

Whatever they are, they have never been isolated. They don't, IMO, cause disease, and do not reproduce.

27 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Viruses - if they exist at all - are only evident when the cell dies. They are cell debris. Probably formed in the shape they are to enable trouble-free cell elimination from the body.

That statement is a bit contradictory. And of course viruses can be isolated. Virology isolation is separating virus particles from other cellular components or contaminants in a sample so it can be studied, sequenced, visualized, and propagated Its standard practice and has been done for all types viruses such as influenza, hiv, sars and measles among others. Isolated viruses are measurable using electron microscopy to visualize their structure, genetic sequencing, and infectivity tests to observe how they can infect new hosts and cause disease. Viruses exist. 

27 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

New Biology Camp, that reckon they are simply tiny gas bubbles. Others say they are exosomes.

When this is proven then I’ll listen.

27 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

They don't, IMO, cause disease, and do not reproduce.

We can play with semantics until the Sun burns out. The immune system can be our best defense and our worst enemy at the same time. No, the virus didn’t kill, it was by the suicidal immune system.

23 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Viruses - if they exist at all - are only evident when the cell dies. They are cell debris. Probably formed in the shape they are to enable trouble-free cell elimination from the body.

 

There is a school of thought, in the New Biology Camp, that reckon they are simply tiny gas bubbles. Others say they are exosomes.

 

Whatever they are, they have never been isolated. They don't, IMO, cause disease, and do not reproduce.

 

Who knew!

It was just a little gas!

 

And once again "Big White Coat" is profiting off overpriced treatments, when a couple of Rolaids©  would have 'em on their feet again!

 

1 hour ago, novacova said:

And of course viruses can be isolated. Virology isolation is separating virus particles from other cellular components or contaminants in a sample so it can be studied, sequenced, visualized, and propagated Its standard practice and has been done for all types viruses such as influenza, hiv, sars and measles among others.

Oh no they haven't. A virus - any virus - has never been isolated and shown to exist. And if that can't be done, then the rest is made up guff.

 

It has also not been shown, that an illness, can be passed from a sick person to a well person.

 

Can't you see Sir, that is there is no virus? It then follows, there is no disease caused by one. And that renders a vaccine totally impotent.

 

Nature is fundamentally interested in just two things. Survival and reproduction. There is no place for a pathogenic virus in nature.

Virus isolation 

 

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Microbiology_(OpenStax)/06%3A_Acellular_Pathogens/6.03%3A_Isolation_Culture_and_Identification_of_Viruses

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9002075/

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1128/9781555815974.ch3

 

Goodnight 😴 

This guy calls "virus deniers" the "flat earthers of biology"

 

 

44 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

This guy calls "virus deniers" the "flat earthers of biology"

 

 

Indeed he does. White-coat Wilson let his cat out the bag right at the end of this vid. The only way to get enough viral particles is to grow them. He says. Of course it's the only way to get something that don't exist in a live environment. Viruses are dead. They can't be grown in a petri dish.

 

Contrary to what he says. These so-called virologists do not do any controls in the lab. What he is saying is false.

 

I can go back to virtually all the experiments that have proclaimed that they have isolated a virus. All of them, going back to Dr Enders in 1954 grow their 'viruses' in petri-dishes.

 

As for debunking Dr Kaufman!? In serious anti-virus circles Dr Wilson is simply seen as a badly informed, fool. Who has refused to debate with either Dr Kaufman or Dr Cowan.

 

47 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

Virus isolation 

 

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Microbiology/Microbiology_(OpenStax)/06%3A_Acellular_Pathogens/6.03%3A_Isolation_Culture_and_Identification_of_Viruses

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9002075/

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1128/9781555815974.ch3

 

Goodnight 😴 

You know what isolation is Sir. As I do. But it seems that the virologists do not.

 

Isolation is not growing a micro-particle in a petri-dish.

6 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I can go back to virtually all the experiments that have proclaimed that they have isolated a virus. All of them, going back to Dr Enders in 1954 grow their 'viruses' in petri-dishes.

 

Sorry, this stuff is over my head.

 

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

This guy calls "virus deniers" the "flat earthers of biology"

 

That's a very good way to put. Pasteur's germ theory was adopted in similar circumstances, and for similar motives, to Copernicus' heliocentric theory. Scientific accuracy was not the driving force in both cases.

10 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You know what isolation is Sir. As I do. But it seems that the virologists do not.

 

Isolation is not growing a micro-particle in a petri-dish.

 

Nonsense 

15 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

 

Nonsense 

Nonsense! Really! People who believe the Big Pharma line might say that.

 

However, if one cares to look at the evidence, accumulated down the decades, and often hidden away in special places when one has to jump through hoops and squeeze under bars to even locate it, there is a far different story.

 

The 'Germ Theory' is just that. A theory. Think about it. It simply does not make sense.

 

Take a look around you Sir. You are a part of nature. Viruses are anti-nature.

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

You are a part of nature. Viruses are anti-nature.

 

Really?

Viruses appear to be "part of nature" actually.

 

16 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Oh no they haven't. A virus - any virus - has never been isolated and shown to exist.

Show us the tests and observations that prove this, just the raw data.

16 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

It has also not been shown, that an illness, can be passed from a sick person to a well person.

What planet do you live on? Contagions are an intricate part of life.

16 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Nature is fundamentally interested in just two things. Survival and reproduction.

Nature is much larger than life which is a minor fraction of existence. Everything that is in existence is a part of nature. You seem to have gotten yourself into a maze of rationalizations. Observations and tests need to be conducted, not toying around with assumptions.

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Show us the tests and observations that prove this, just the raw data.

What planet do you live on? Contagions are an intricate part of life.

Nature is much larger than life which is a minor fraction of existence. Everything that is in existence is a part of nature. You seem to have gotten yourself into a maze of rationalizations. Observations and tests need to be conducted, not toying around with assumptions.

The above paragraph is nonsense! In fact it's monumental humbug.

 

In medicine, only the west's system, thinks contagion is even real. I say it is not real. Just made up nonsense.

 

Nature is all. Even you are a member Sir.

 

Most testing is done because of medicine, injections, procedures, vaccines etc. Get with nature and read yer body. Much better, than some Big Pharma test. That often puts unnecessarily fear into yer. Don't you realise Sir, that fear changes the bio-electrical rhythms and vibrations of the body?

 

Observations!? What! When did that 20 stone lady realise she was putting on weight?

57 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Most testing is done because of medicine, injections, procedures, vaccines etc

 

What do you mean?

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

The above paragraph is nonsense! In fact it's monumental humbug.

Please clarify.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

In medicine, only the west's system, thinks contagion is even real. I say it is not real. Just made up nonsense.

That’s your prerogative, folks are free to choose what they believe.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Most testing is done because of medicine, injections, procedures, vaccines etc. 

Incorrect. Most testing is done because of human curiosity and challenge for clear answers, though in my experience have seen many of my colleagues get distracted and sidetracked  and overly focused on a notion wave without a completed proven test and thereby losing credibility.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Much better, than some Big Pharma test. That often puts unnecessarily fear into yer. Don't you realise Sir, that fear changes the bio-electrical rhythms and vibrations of the body?

 Your op is “what is a virus” not a pharma or bio electrical stuff.

You stepped in a realm you know nothing about, so here a little project for you to comprehend and conceptualize. Take your time, it’s not really difficult to understand…

 

1- Filamentous Bacteriophage f1 pIV Structure (Journal Nature, 2021)

Key Raw Data: Purified pIV protein (~1 mg/L yield) from E. coli, imaged via cryo-EM (21,373 micrographs, ~571,980 particles processed). Resolution: 2.7 Å overall. Structural metrics: 15-subunit channel (96 Å height, 112 Å width); β-barrel with 60 strands (41° tilt); pore diameters 40-74 Å; 28-34 hydrogen bonds/subunit. Functional: Mutants reduced phage production 50-90%. Demonstrates phage as a structured machine for assembly/release.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26610-3

 

2- Influenza A and B Virus Replication Complexes (Journal Nature, 2024)

Key Raw Data: Purified polymerases from insect cells, mixed with host ANP32A (1:5 ratio). Cryo-EM: 15,650+ movies, millions of particles; resolutions 2.8-3.57 Å. Structures: Asymmetric dimers/trimers (~2200-5100 Ų interfaces); RNA channels (32 nt paths); mutations cut activity 50-100%. Proves influenza viruses’ genome-replicating machinery with atomic precision.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51007-3

 

These datasets, spanning isolation, imaging, and functional assays do absolutely collectively affirm viruses’ existence through reproducible, quantifiable evidence from the above peer reviewed sources. And if you do and are able to actually read these and have any evidence to disprove them, then I’ll listen and if you actually are able to succeed with your proof then I’ll spend every waking hour giving you a ❤️ on every one of your posts whether correct or incorrect. That’s a promise.

1 hour ago, novacova said:

These datasets, spanning isolation, imaging, and functional assays do absolutely collectively affirm viruses’ existence through reproducible, quantifiable evidence from the above peer reviewed sources. And if you do and are able to actually read these and have any evidence to disprove them, then I’ll listen and if you actually are able to succeed with your proof then I’ll spend every waking hour giving you a ❤️ on every one of your posts whether correct or incorrect. That’s a promise.

They do not show the existence of a living virus. As I have often posted. Viruses are dead, inert, do not reproduce (obviously) and have never been shown to cause any illness.

 

IMO, not one of the tests adhered to the first of the Koch Postulates. The gold standard for this type of lab procedure. First isolate the entity.

 

Where do these white-coat virologists get their original samples from Sir? You don't know eh? Not to worry; I'll tell you. They take some mucus from a person supposedly sick with the disease(s) they are investigating. Sometimes they mix the mucus with a thinner and run the lot through a filter. The stuff that gets through the filter then goes into the petri dish. They add nutrients. They add a load of other stuff, and finally they starve the soup. Oh look! The soup has died. Must be the virus in the mucus.

 

If electron microscopy is available, and used, they need to fix the soup, dye it, gel it and slice it. and what do you know; the microscope tells all.

 

But they never started with an isolated sample in the first place.

 

It's all a nonsense. It's anti Koch's Postulates. Anti-nature and often downright fraudulent.

 

These peer reviewed papers are often full of nonsense. Always best to read the methodology to find out what the experiment was really all about. Can't just go on the title or summary.

 

As for the journals? Don't get me started. The really good papers don't get in.

7 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

They do not show the existence of a living virus.

 

Um, uhh, but.....oh, geez.

 

But Dr. Koch...

 

Koch’s postulates were presented in 1890 (here and here), at a time when germ theory was still controversial and before the discovery of viruses, to which Koch’s postulates, as they were originally written, do not apply.

9 hours ago, save the frogs said:

 

Really?

Viruses appear to be "part of nature" actually.

 

Do they? Well if they exist, they do for sure. But one has never been found in a tissue or cell that is not dead. Personally, I think they are simply cell debris.

 

Most people, and many white-coats for that matter, believe there is a virus behind every tree, under every log and hiding in the shadows, just waiting to pounce. This view of viruses predominates. But that view is in itself anti-nature and not a viable argument.