oh, always so serious freshy...

"I know that I know nothing"...

For someone who knows nothing youve spent a lot of time recently

Criticizing others opinions

Quote
fresh
For someone who knows nothing youve spent a lot of time recently

Criticizing others opinions

I'm critical of you & JR's BULLYING approach and your know it all or you must be an idiot attitude....

fresh:
" Fixed it for the dunces among us who are so smart they don't even need to watch the video "

"Submit your refutation of kaufman
Else be quiet"

"You realize he can lose his license for saying those things right, dummy?"

"Then admit you are wrong, The evidence is overwhelming, Not that I care what you admit "

"Nope I just don't like liars, Like Tai calling him a psychiatrist as if that's all he has done, Or you refusing to admit when your position is wrong"

"Is that your admission that your virus theory is in error?"

"

Fresh
Dont be stupid

Tai
I don't want to be. I try not to be. You are over reaching here. IT's legitimate for me to wonder what a psychiatrist is doing studying this.

Fresh
Have modicum of integrity

Tai
I try. YOu are not using a good example to accuse me otherwise

Fresh
Read his qualifications

Bachelors of Science in Biology MIT
Doctor of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina
Psychiatry Residency, Duke University
Former Medical Instructor of Hematology and Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina

Not good enough for dishonest tai

Tai
Yes, I read his qualifications and everyone read his qualifications, and I called him a psychiatrist, which is what he is! It is shameful for you to say I am being dishonest. It is far more prestigious to be a psychiatrist than to be called a medical instructor. The highest qualification here is that he is a psychiatrist. He went to medical school and then did his residency in psychiatry. I am technically an acupuncturist and herbalist and ETC but for short, I am just called an acupuncturist, because the license is what's the issue for most.
If you are going to call me dishonest, at least do so when you can legitimately say so.

Fresh
Youre another one incapable of admitting youre wrong

Tai
NO, I try to be humble and really search for opposing views. You say that Jon R has had 35 years researching the topic. Guess how many years I have exploring these topics in a hands-on way, one on one with people? More than 20. I don't want to say exactly how many but it's a lot and one video or one article is not going to negate 20 years of hands on experience verifying infectious/contagious model. Despite my years of experience, I am always open to hear something legitimate that opposes what I thought to be true.

Fresh
Probably didn't watch video either
\
Tai
I did. And I am in the process of listening to various other people discuss exosomes and they are not matching up with Kaufman. But I prefer to share about it when I have heard enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2020 11:04PM by Tai.

You were trying to minimize his other work

And what you said is 100% wrong and a distortion

that's like me saying that Einstein is a sailor (because he was)
so why would he know anything about physics

We await your expert dissection of the video

Probably using people who have a vested interest in propagating the germ theory

He has no particular bias

He is objective and well versed

It's unfortunate people are so attached to their current ideas.
It's like asking people to kill themselves
That's how attached people are
Including you.
I don't make my living based on this stuff you do
you're invested
big difference
there's no way you're ever going to believe it you'll come up with all kinds of excuses why it's not true

It does not matter how long someone has been studying something except to indicate that they just didn't start studying something yesterday

what matters is does it fit the facts and the evidence

Faucis ideas do not fit the facts and the evidence
And he has a clear bias

Jon rappoport ideas fit the facts and the evidence as does kaufman
Neither has a bias
They follow the evidence

None of the postulates were satisfied just as he said
it's very easy to see that
as far as exosomes that's not absolutely required it's merely his hypothesis that others have by the way also

doesn't change the fact they lied in the paper and they didn't satisfy what they said which is typical of a lot of science it's just propaganda studies with no controls and proper technique



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2020 11:26PM by fresh.

Fresh
And what you said is 100% wrong and a distortion

Tai
Be specific here Fresh because if we cannot agree on the fact that he is a psychiatrist, then how can we agree on anything, when the facts are laid out so plainly that even a child could not argue?

If you are going to call me 100% wrong after you reiterated his medical degree and residency, then I feel like this is a game.

Fresh
It's like asking people to kill themselves
That's how attached people are
Including you.

Tai
Warning people of virus dangers, like Hepatitis B, C, HIV, etc is trying to extend life and make sure people are healthy so they won't feel like killing themselves if they get very sick later.

Telling someone to be careful is not asking anyone to kill themselves!!! STudying zoonotic disease transmission is being careful with the purpose of extending life.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2020 11:48PM by Tai.

Tai
Be specific here Fresh because if we cannot agree on the fact that he is a psychiatrist, then how can we agree on anything, when the facts are laid out so plainly that even a child could not argue



......why do I need to explain this again ??

you're calling him a psychiatrist of course he's a psychiatrist

you're saying that because you tried to minimize his other studies and try to act as if a psychiatrist won't know anything about the subject matter

that we're talking about here when clearly he does having been a oncologist etc





THis is crazy

.....That's not what I'm talking about what I'm talking about is expecting people like you to change their minds all of a sudden after 20-30 years it's like asking the person to kill themselves and their identity

Tai,
<<<When I heard John Rose say anal sex with no condom is not going to transmit HIV>>>

I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ANAL SEX and HIV DOES NOT CAUSE AIDS!!!

To John Rose

Tai
I deleted that comment, so can you just delete this comment?
On one of your youtube videos that I commented on years back, you talk about that. But I just deleted the comment, because let's not talk about it. YOu have to remember that video. Can we just delete this and keep it PG?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2020 12:05AM by Tai.

I do appreciate the more thorough search for evidence that Fresh has initiated. However, seeking out a biased source often only produces a biased opinion.

Dr. Kaufman's credentials: [hipegalaxy.com]

"Dr. Andrew Kaufman is a board certified MD licensed in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Some of his other qualifications include:

Former medical instructor of hematology and oncology at the Medical University of South Carolina
Doctor of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina
Bachelors of Science in Biology, MIT"

Sorry, but none of the above make him an expert on viruses. Most importantly, his licenses include only psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. Nothing else.

Unlike psychologists, psychiatrists prescribe drugs. Like BIG PHARM drugs. That kind.

But more on his video later below.

IMO a virus is the best explanation for why so many people are dying.

For example, let's say all of the following are absolutely 100% true:

Inflation of fear
Phony stats
Phony tests
Underlying disease
Toxic food
Lying media
Toxic agents
Poisonous treatments


These circumstances could exist simultaneously with a virus, and certainly don't prove that a contagious virus is not killing people.

If true, they could definitely demonstrate the frailty of human nature, and/or possibly an inherent skepticism (healthy or not) of the author, but they really don't say anything at all about the actual existence of any virus.

Again, those circumstances could exist simultaneously with the existence of a virus.

A couple of comments about the Kaufman video. First, the emphasis appears to be more focused on several references cited by the authors of the "Nature" article than on the actual study itself. But references included with a study are not intended to be presented as confirmation for the conclusion of the research. They play a role only in providing information that can be helpful for designing the new study.

After all, as Kaufman points out, those referenced studies don't meet Koch's postulates. We all know that. It's stated in the Nature article, first paragraph under "Main". So why so much focus on those references?

There are a lot of details about the Nature article that are only summarized. Why not go to the authors for more complete information before making a video? Kinda lame for someone who doesn't have a comparable background.

What the article does say is that their researchers DID meet Koch's postulates (as modified for viruses by Rivers), and the authors do provide some detail about their study that directly relates to River's postulates and that I didn't find in the Kaufman video.

Here's a link to the article, which includes pictures

[www.nature.com]

Here's the text of the article:

Brief Communication
Published: 15 May 2003
Aetiology

Koch's postulates fulfilled for SARS virus
Ron A. M. Fouchier, Thijs Kuiken, Martin Schutten, Geert van Amerongen, Gerard J. J. van Doornum, Bernadette G. van den Hoogen, Malik Peiris, Wilina Lim, Klaus Stöhr & Albert D. M. E. Osterhaus
Nature volume 423, page240(2003)Cite this article

3293 Accesses

503 Citations

31 Altmetric

Metricsdetails

Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has recently emerged as a new human disease, resulting globally in 435 deaths from 6,234 probable cases (as of 3 May 2003). Here we provide proof from experimental infection of cynomolgus macaques (Macaca fascicularis) that the newly discovered SARS-associated coronavirus (SCV) is the aetiological agent of this disease. Our understanding of the aetiology of SARS will expedite the development of diagnostic tests, antiviral therapies and vaccines, and may allow a more concise case definition for this emerging disease.

Main
According to Koch's postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease1. The first three criteria — isolation of virus from diseased hosts, cultivation in host cells, and proof of filterability — have been met for SCV by several groups2,3,4,5. Moreover, of 96 individuals complying with the World Health Organization's definition of SARS6 in Hong Kong, 86 (90%) yielded laboratory evidence of SCV infection.

We have tested for the three remaining criteria: production of comparable disease in the original host species or a related one, re-isolation of the virus, and detection of a specific immune response to the virus. We inoculated two macaques with Vero-cell-cultured SCV isolated from a fatal SARS case, and monitored their clinical signs, virus excretion and antibody response. The animals were killed six days post-inoculation (d.p.i.), and we then carried out gross and histopathological examinations of them.

Both SCV-inoculated macaques became lethargic from 3 d.p.i. onwards and developed a temporary skin rash, and one suffered respiratory distress from 4 d.p.i. onwards. The macaques excreted virus from the nose and throat at 2–6 d.p.i., as shown by polymerase chain reaction with reverse transcription (RT-PCR) and by virus isolation (see supplementary information). The isolated virus was identical to that inoculated, as shown by negative-contrast electron microscopy (Fig. 1a) and RT-PCR analysis. Seroconversion to SCV, as determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay using infected Vero cells, was demonstrated in two other SCV-infected macaques at 16 d.p.i.. The virus was also isolated from the faeces of one of these animals (see supplementary information).

Figure 1: SARS-associated coronavirus and associated lesions in macaque lungs.
figure1
a, Virus particles re-isolated from nasal swabs of infected macaques display typical coronavirus morphology. b, Diffuse alveolar damage in the lung; alveoli are flooded with highly proteinaceous fluid (arrowhead) that stains dark pink. c, Several syncytia (arrowheads) are present in the lumen of a bronchiole and surrounding alveoli. Original magnifications: a, ×200,000; b, ×150; c, ×100.

Full size image
At gross necropsy, one macaque had severe multifocal pulmonary consolidation, and SCV infection was detected in lung tissue by RT-PCR and virus isolation. Histologically, both macaques had interstitial pneumonia of differing severity. The one with gross lesions had diffuse alveolar damage, marked by necrosis of alveolar and bronchiolar epithelium and flooding of alveolar lumina with proteinaceous fluid, admixed with fibrin, erythrocytes, alveolar macrophages and neutrophils (Fig. 1b). Occasional multinucleated cells (syncytia) were present in the lumen of bronchioles and alveoli (Fig. 1c). These lesions are indistinguishable from those in biopsied lung tissue and in autopsy material from SARS patients5, including the presence of syncytia in alveolar lumina4.

SCV thus fulfils all of Koch's postulates as the primary aetiological agent of SARS. This does not exclude the possibility that other pathogens, including human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and Chlamydia pneumoniae, may have exacerbated the disease in some SARS patients. However, these were not present in SCV-inoculated macaques (results not shown), were not found consistently in SARS patients, and do not usually cause the lesions associated with SARS. Moreover, lesions in macaques infected experimentally with hMPV isolated from a non-SARS individual7 were limited to mild suppurative rhinitis and minimal erosion in conducting airways, and disease was not exacerbated in two SCV-infected macaques subsequently inoculated with hMPV (results not shown).

References
1
Rivers, T. M. J. Bacteriol. 33, 1–12 (1937).

CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
2
Poutanen, S. M. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. (in the press).

3
Drosten, C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. (in the press).

4
Ksiazek, T. G. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. (in the press).

5
Peiris, J. S. M. et al. Lancet 361, 1319–1325 (2003).

CAS
Article
Google Scholar
6
Wkly Epidemiol. Rec. 78, 81–83 (2003).

7
van den Hoogen, B. G. et al. Nature Med. 7, 719–724 (2001).

CAS
Article
Google Scholar
Download references

Author information
Author notes
Klaus Stöhr: On behalf of members of the SARS Aetiology Study Group, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva 27, Switzerland

Affiliations
Department of Virology, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, 3015 GE, The Netherlands
Ron A. M. Fouchier, Thijs Kuiken, Martin Schutten, Geert van Amerongen, Gerard J. J. van Doornum, Bernadette G. van den Hoogen & Albert D. M. E. Osterhaus
Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, University Pathology Building, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
Malik Peiris
Government Virus Unit, 9/F Public Health Laboratory Centre, 382 Nam Cheong Street, Shek Kip Mei, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China
Wilina Lim
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Ron A. M. Fouchier.

Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.

________________________

The Nature article is not about Covid-19 of course. But researchers are making progress, most recently in finding a way to isolate the virus for identification.

[brighterworld.mcmaster.ca]

predictably suncloud

provides ZERO INFORMATION that refutes the analysis

of kaufman

and all kinds of nonsense about his so called bias and credentials
more diversion from focusing on facts

1. the best book ever written on child rearing was by someone with "no credentials"
2. the best research studies on chimps was done by someone without "credentials"

depth of study and research and logic is what's important

no amount of "credentials" would satisfy tai, suncloud or nunativs on any topic that presented a position counter to theirs.

another demonstration of the rigidity of humans
and failure to be open to changing one's position
due to the investment the person has.

CONFIRMATION BIAS

regarding the analogy of all those causes not precluding a virus

here's the same logic

67 year old man has been burned in a fire
and dies

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A VIRUS DIDN'T KILL HIM.
I don't have any evidence that a virus is involved,
I'm just going to make the claim without evidence
therefore the man died of VIRUS.



The Nature article is not about Covid-19 of course. But researchers are making progress, most recently in finding a way to isolate the virus for identification.


YUP keep up that search . we will find a virus .
VIRUS VIRUS VIRUS.
must be A virus

IT'S LIKE a form of insanity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2020 02:05AM by fresh.

JR Style:

Spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle goes as far as to describe the need to be right as a form of violence. At its mildest, it is inflexibility. At its height, it manifests as dominance. The compulsion to inflict our opinions of the world on another originates in fear. Its opposites are humility and compassion. Even the golden rule tells us to treat others in a way we would like to be treated. If you just keep banging away at someone until they flinch and accept your point of view, you're probably not very happy with the state of your current relationships—or secretly need that validation to feel good about yourself.

has nothing to do with needing to be right.

but you like projecting upon others.

TRUTH over being right
TRUTH over being nice.

you'll never get it
and you'll keep ascribing personality traits to people falsely.

Suggestion Fresh. Since you have concerns about the Nature article, maybe you could discuss them with the author.

Here's the link again.

[www.nature.com]

Just scroll down until you get to the part that says:

"Corresponding author
Correspondence to Ron A. M. Fouchier."

Click that part and fill in your contact information and all your concerns.

you can address kaufman since you have concerns as well.

you're confusing people
not being nice
with
something else



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2020 03:18AM by fresh.

Quote
fresh
you can address kaufman since you have concerns as well.

you're confusing people
not being nice
with
something else

seriously fresh, it seems that you and JR spend your whole days just going around looking for something to get pissed off and angry about. Maybe plant some food?!?

you can't stop projecting on me can you.

not angry.

Quote
fresh
you can't stop projecting on me can you.

not angry.

Look at your posts...
Anger
Anger
Anger
Injustice
Stupidity
Anger
Anger
Anger

nope.

you just can't leave people alone can you.

there's a difference between providing a counterpoint to something
where we all can learn

and what you do which is simply
accuse others of being something
or doing something

but i guess if it's working for you.
doesn't seem to be.

Suncloud:
For example, let's say all of the following are absolutely 100% true:

Inflation of fear
Phony stats
Phony tests
Underlying disease
Toxic food
Lying media
Toxic agents
Poisonous treatments

These circumstances could exist simultaneously with a virus, and certainly don't prove that a contagious virus is not killing people.

Tai
Exactly!
Exactly!
Exactly!
Thanks for spelling it out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/21/2020 04:05AM by Tai.

AND YET NO PROOF OFFERED!!!

OH MAN YOU TWO ARE FUNNY

all those could be causes
and it could be little green men circulating in the air and blood too!!