Updated: Kaufman, Lanka testify for Fuellmich investigation. Kaufman offers rebuttal to Dr. Mercola and Jeremy Hammond claiming SARS-CoV-2 exists.

Here is the audio from Friday, Feb. 4, Kaufman and Lanka on the Fullmich investigative panel program. This is an exciting, live, proof of concept experiment on where the lack of a virus issue meets the mainstream covid truth movement.

Andrew Kaufman in his new video.

Link to the full video by clicking here, or the photo. Here is the first 35 minutes of the audio by Dr. Kaufman. I have preserved separately audio from the whole Hammond presentation. That is the second player below. Originally published Jan. 18. Updated Feb. 4.

Here is Jeremy Hammond’s full presentation, captured from video:

Earlier this week, Dr. Joseph Mercola published an article called Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus. You may be familiar with my discussion of the virus/no virus split in the covid truth movement. Many of the biggest names in the movement are arguing that there is a virus; many of the smartest ones understand how and why there is not. This includes 130 governments and institutions admitting as much.

Here is Mercola’s full article, in case Mercola puts it behind his paywall (claiming he was ‘forced’ to do so). The Mercola article published online contains a video interview with Jeremy Hammond, a self-styled journalist.

The video is heavily quoted by Kaufman in his response; I have preserved the audio for when the video disappears. However, in his reply above, Dr Kaufman fairly and accurately quotes Hammond’s position with numerous references.

I have corresponded at length with Hammond, who seems intent on convincing the world he is a reasonable guy and is “following the science” when the science points to no actual evidence of viral isolation.

If there is no isolation, we have an explanation why all the PCR “covid” tests use in silico sequences, or mimicked human specimens — not real virus. These theoretical sequences are made up in a computer and then used to “diagnose” “covid” in a person who takes the PCR “test,” which is not really a test, for reasons I’ve explained many times.

Mercola’s readers were not letting him get away with it. Here is my favorite response, dug out of the thread by our Cindy Tice Ragusa. Sorry this is supposed to be a block quote, but that feature is not working. Anyway here is a good laugh; Andy is saying essentially the same thing above.

I am a bit perplexed. They say that they are basically taking samples and putting them on monkey cell cultures and then using PCR analysis by taking specific sequences that they have already identified as related to viruses to reconstruct bits of DNA and combining it them into a model that they say represents the genome of SARS-COV2. I can tell you that the CDC paper in which they say that they isolated SARS-COV2, published in June 2020 entitled “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” clearly state:

“We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs.”

Meaning CDC scientists state they took just 37 base pairs from a genome of 30,000 base pairs! That means that about 0.001% of the viral sequence is derived from actual living samples or real bodily tissue!?! As well, the CDC tested the ‘virus’ (i.e. solutions they claim contain samples of SARS-CoV-2) on 3 different types of human tissue cultures (human adenocarcinoma cells [A549], human liver cells [HUH 7.0] and human embryonic kidney cells [HEK-293T]). The ‘virus’ was not able to infect any of the 3 human tissue cultures, even when provided in high concentrations. In fact, the only way that they have achieved any pathogenic effect was to poison the monkey cells.

It always pays to read all the information in the appendix to find out exactly what they have done.

Leave a Reply