The Shocking Truth About Covid Tests – Truthiverse Episode 5 with Brendan D. Murphy

[00:00:01] Brendan D. Murphy: [00:00:01] Hello, and welcome to Truthiverse. I'm your host, Brendan D Murphy, and you are listening to [00:01:00] HealthyLife.net Radio. Kicking off my first episode on the network, I thought I should give you a little bit of background about me. I won't tell you my life story, but just so we can get to know each other a little better, I am an author, writer, musician, speaker. I wrote a book called The Grand Illusion, A Synthesis Of Science And Spirituality back in the end of 2012, it's a massive monumental book. Very deeply researched, very comprehensive and it's changed a lot of people's perception and lives based on feedback.

[00:01:52] So if you're into the paranormal, consciousness, and all the woo you'll probably like that, go check it out. You can find it on my website, [00:02:00] brendandmurphy.com. I am co-founder of trooth.network which is a Facebook alternative. My partner and I created it after we were censored by Facebook back in June of 2018, which was actually when they ran their first major censorship purge and deleted over a hundred pages that were essentially dissident pages, non-conformist pages, pages that did not go along with the official sort of narrative or narratives that Facebook and the other social giants are pushing. So this week, we're going to talk about the coronavirus plandemic, the various sort of foundational pieces, particularly honing in on the medical aspects, the diagnostic aspects. And I'm not going to bore you. I don't intend to bore you. I want to show you that this pandemic is a pandemic of testing and misinterpretation, a lot of assumptions and false assumptions. And we're going to show you that as we go. So we're going to pull it apart. [00:03:00] I'm going to dedicate the show to David Crowe, the late Canadian researcher.

[00:03:04] He was the founder of the Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society and the President of Rethinking AIDS from 2008 until his sudden death in July, July 12th of this year, which was very sad. He had cancer and I don't think he realized until it was basically too late. It seemed to creep up on him very quickly.

[00:03:24] I interviewed him a couple of months before he died. And at that point he didn't seem to realize. I'm pretty sure he hadn't been diagnosed at that point. So it was a very sad loss in the field. He was a great humanitarian. He did 40 years worth of research and study in bio medicine, medical science, he had a background in biology and computing and, you know, he was, he was trying to educate the people and show people. "Hey, you know, we can't always believe blindly believe what the authority structure tells us". So I want to thank him. I'm going to start the show by quoting directly from his Coronavirus [00:04:00] Panic ebook, Version 6.2, which he published in March, 2020.

[00:04:09] David was one of the most knowledgeable people on the planet, as far as this kind of stuff goes. And particularly as a dissident, someone who doesn't accept things at the surface level. So his perspective was, is still remains very valuable, indeed. So he says: [00:04:22] "The coronavirus scare that emanated from Wuhan, China in December, 2019 is an epidemic of testing. There is no proof that a virus is being detected by the test. And there is absolutely no concern about whether there are a number of false positives coming out of the test. What is being published in medical journals is not science.

[00:04:40] "Every paper has the goal of enhancing the panic by interpreting the data only in ways that benefit the viral theory. In other words, the medical papers are propaganda."

[00:04:50] And he continues by saying, "It's also an epidemic of definition. The definition which assumes perfection from the test" - we'll get to that - "does not have the safety [00:05:00] valve that the definition of SARS did. So the scare can go on until public health officials change the definition or realize that the test isn't reliable."

[00:05:08] And he finishes this section by saying, "What I learned from studying SARS, the previous big coronavirus scare after the 2003 epidemic, was that nobody had proved a coronavirus existed let alone was pathogenic. There was evidence against transmission and afterwards negative assessments of the extreme treatments the patients were subjected to, which sounds like a repeat of the HIV AIDS scare that came out of the eighties."

[00:05:34] So there are basically three core assumptions here. I suppose you could say driving this idea that there is a viral pandemic and that we're all in peril and we should all do as we're told and put out masks on and shut up.

[00:05:46] Basically the three core assumptions are that the SARS-Cov-2, this so-called novel coronavirus definitely exists. And that presumes purification isolation, and definite genetic characterization of it. Secondly, [00:06:00] there's this assumption, which is also unproved that it's pathogenic and thirdly, there's the additional assumption, which is also unproved that it is transmissible, it's infectious between people.

[00:06:10] And the evidence actually, when you get into it, start digging into it suggests that this, this is not the case at all and what we're looking. at it is a case of many different types of stress and toxicity in different parts of the world playing out and creating illness and we are having it spun by the propaganda outlets of the mainstream media and the government spokespeople as per usual, nothing new there.

[00:06:36] So David says. And I quote, "The world is suffering from a massive delusion based on the belief that a test for RNA is a test for a deadly new virus." And he says, "If the virus exists, it should be possible to purify viral particles. And from these particles, RNA can be extracted and it should match the RNA used in the test.

[00:06:55] "But until this is done, it's possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the [00:07:00] cells of the patient or bacteria, fungi. There might be an association with elevated levels of this RNA and illness - so an association - but that isn't proof that the RNA comes from a virus.

[00:07:12] Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it can't be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present." And that's crucial. Absolutely crucial. And the bioweapon narrative of the sort of alternative community or conspiracy community, it rests on basically the same assumptions. You know, they assume the reality of the virus. They assume, infectivity, they assume it's pathogenic and they don't dig into the foundations of where we get these ideas from. What evidence is there? Well, you know, in my experience, it turns out that there's basically none and the history of virology, and this is something most people don't know is riddled with scientific fraud.

[00:07:52] It's riddled with bad science, junk science, crappy medicine, and people, you know, who are, ego-driven looking for fame and fortune [00:08:00] and looking for accolades. And they, you know, people like Robert Gallo, for example, who can't be trusted, who are frauds and documented crooks. So. We really have been caught with our pants down, so to speak. And we've got to get a little bit more on the ball, ladies and gentlemen, start paying closer attention and questioning the narratives we're being fed.

[00:08:20] So we could ask ourselves what about yeah. Living conditions in the areas where people are getting sick. What's going on in these areas where allegedly there's an outbreak of some virus, whether it's coronavirus or Ebola, Zika, whatever, what are the living conditions of these people?

[00:08:40] Are they being subjected to significant sources of toxicity that they shouldn't be? That the human body is not designed to cope with, because that is actually a very, very important thing. And it is of course, completely dodged and glossed over, avoided in the mainstream narrative. You know, the media outlets feeding [00:09:00] us the fear porn, they don't ever go into this. They don't ever talk about the living conditions, environment, they don't talk about lifestyle. They don't talk about your diet, what you're eating, what you're drinking, what you're thinking. None of that stuff. Of course, it's all about viruses and the warfare model of health, right? So we're just supposed to, you know, try and kill all the germs that's about it.

[00:09:20] And then once we kill the germs, we'll be, we'll be safe. Don't worry. We'll be good. So we just need big pharma's help. And Bill Gates' help. And, we'll be fine if we just shut up and behave ourselves. So let's get into a bit of background on viruses. There's an excellent book. I strongly recommend called Virus Mania by Torsten Engelbrecht and Klaus Kohnlein, fantastic research. And, I'm going to quote from it a few times here. So a little bit of basics around viruses. They basically measure from between 20 nanometers to 450 nanometers across, and they're much, much smaller than bacteria or fungi. They can only be seen with an electron microscope. [00:10:00] Bacteria and fungi, on the other hand, can be seen with a basic light microscope because they're larger. Now Pasteurians, and those of the Louis Pasteur kind of outlook were using the term virus in the 1800's. And it's actually a term that's derived from Latin. The Latin virus means "poison" and it was used to describe organic structures that could not be classed as bacteria.

[00:10:27] So back in the 1800's, they had this very broad idea of "virus", which meant poison originally, and it was anything that was not a bacteria. So, this is a pretty broad term, anything that was not bacteria could be classed as virus slash poison. Now in principle that could have applied to DNA. It could have applied to RNA and that's all much too small to be seen. It was far too small to be seen before the advent of the electron microscope and the first one wasn't patented until I think [00:11:00] 1931. So this generic virus idea fitted into the militaristic germ theory paradigm. And this, this myth became very entrenched, very rapidly in the human psyche, the myth of a one to one pathogen to disease model of causality, also known as monomorphism.

[00:11:20] And so always the culprits for sickness and disease were these so-called, external invaders, these viruses, and this is the assumption that took root and has persisted ever since, even though there was no real evidence, it was a belief. And it became a religion unto itself. So there've been some major hiccups along the way.

[00:11:41] Engelbrecht and his coauthor, Kohnlein, contacted the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin in 2005 requesting the following information. They requested the names of the studies that indisputably show that SARS, Hep C, Ebola, smallpox, and polio viruses have been proven to exist. That is they've [00:12:00] been purified, properly isolated, and their biochemical properties have been defined, using electron micrographs supported by electron micrographs. And they also requested the names of studies indisputably show that viruses, the viruses named above, caused disease. So those viruses such as SARS, Hep C, Ebola, and so on, so forth and all the rest of them.

[00:12:22] And they also factored in, well, can you show us that these other things like mountain nutrition and toxicity do not at least co-determine the cause of disease? Now, long story short, these guys never got a response back from the Koch Institute in Berlin, and they're not the only people who've gone looking for this information.

[00:12:38] Basically the ugly secret of virology is that many years ago, mainstream science left the path of direct observation of nature and went instead with indirect proof, a AKA proof with procedures, such as antibodies, serology, and costly PCR tests. So, unfortunately, both of these methods, if you dig down into it produce basically meaningless results.

[00:12:38] So that has serious ramifications for the situation we now find ourselves in, if we can't trust these tests or so-called tests. Even Wang Chen, who's President of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences admitted in February that the PCR test, and I quote, is "Only 30 to 50% accurate", which is woeful, obviously woeful.

[00:12:38] So you would never want to rely solely on them for diagnostics. In fact, we're going to take that further in a second. Antibody tests, on the other hand, just show that there are antibodies present. They're not a direct observation or proof of the presumed virus or other particles to which the antibody tests react.

[00:12:38] So as long as the virus or the cell particle, the antigen, hasn't been precisely defined. We don't even know what the antibody tests are reacting to. That's why they are called unspecific or nonspecific. It's accepted even in the mainstream that having previously had a cold virus in your body will potentially cause a positive result for so-called COVID-19, this allegedly new coronavirus.

[00:12:38] Now, PCR tests present a similar issue. They're [00:13:00] used to identify supposedly, [00:14:00] COVID-19 patients who are infected allegedly by SARS- CoV-2. But the problem is they don't have a valid gold standard to compare them with. So they're self referential. We're just looking at them and making the assumption that these things can be trusted to do what they are claimed to do. But only a virus that's proved to be isolated and purified can be a solid gold standard. And we don't have that gold standard.

[00:14:47] So according to Torsten Engelbrecht and his coauthor , Constantine Demeter - coauthor of a very, very good article, which I strongly recommend. I'll give you the name in a moment - they did a fantastic investigation into the [00:15:00] PCR tests and they tell us that there are no distinctive symptoms, specific symptoms for COVID-19. And that's admitted even by people, such as Thomas Löscher, the former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich.

[00:15:15] So, that's obviously a problem. If you don't have a specific distinctive set of symptoms for a disease, how do you know that it's not some other disease? How do you know it's not the flu? How do you know it's not the common cold, or, you know, pneumonia and whatever else is going on?

[00:15:31] Okay. So let's get into RTPCR tests. How do they work? What are they doing? Now, what most people don't realize is that the idea of viral load is a bit of a misnomer. It actually just means RNA molecules, it's genetic material, and we don't know, we have not proved that the genetic material comes from a putative virus that has [00:16:00] actually invaded the body. This is actually just a couple of assumptions that we make. These assumptions are built into the germ theory paradigm, the warfare model of health and illness. So PCR tests are currently being used as COVID-19 diagnostic tests, when in fact, they were never intended to be used in such a way. And the inventor of the PCR, Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullis was clear about its limitations and that it should never be used to do the things that it's currently being used for in the coronavirus scare.

[00:16:34] So PCR tests multiply whatever genetic material is present in the sample, basically all of it. With every new cycle that you run of multiplication, the load doubles again. So you get an exponential increase in the amount of cellular debris and genetic material. So both the presumed virus, and all the other material is exponentially multiplying until the arbitrary cutoff point is reached, whatever that [00:17:00] might be, whether they run 25 cycles, or 37 cycles, or 45 cycles. And at that point they're deciding, well, if I cut off 35 cycles, you're positive, or, they're determining that you're not. It's quite arbitrary. So it probably doesn't sound very much like science to you or good science anyway.

[00:17:17] And that's because it's not. So as David Crowe tells us in his very thoroughly research Coronavirus Panic book, PCR, is "a DNA manufacturing technique." And, "When it's used as a test, it doesn't produce a positive / negative result. But it just gives the number of cycles required to detect a sufficient amount of material to beat the arbitrary cutoff between positive and negative.

[00:17:41] "So if positive means infected and negative means uninfected, and there are cases" - and this is documented - cases "of people going from infected to uninfected and back to infected again in a couple of days." Which is ludicrous. And I just recently shared on Facebook, the instance of an Essendon football player [00:18:00] who had tested positive and then a couple of days later tested negative.

[00:18:03] And this keeps happening. It just goes to show the tests really don't mean anything. I mean, if you, if you really had this supposed disease, then he should have still had the positive test result a couple of days later because he would have had all the antibodies or the genetic material still would have been there.

[00:18:21] But it just goes to show that this, this is kind of a very misleading form of so-called test. It's not supposed to be used this way. I think Kary Mullis would be rolling in his grave right now if he knew what was going on. So Crowe adds, "There's no way to tell that the RNA that's being used in the PCR test is actually found in the particles that we see in the electron micrograph," these images of the microbiological level of the body and our genetics. We don't know. So there's no connection between the test and the particles. And there's no proof that the particles are viral. It's just an assumption that's made. We

[00:19:00] just keep making these assumptions in line with the Pasteurian sort of ethos. So Engelbrecht and Demeter, they wrote together an amazing article called "COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless" and it is definitely worth reading. I'm going to quote a few times from it here in this episode. And they tell us that basically as Crowe says, we need to know where the R in the RNA comes from. You know, the RNA that the PCR tests are calibrated for. Where does that come from? Particle purification is essential to that, to knowing that where it comes from, and PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA, but it cannot determine where the particles come from. That has to be determined beforehand. Then you can have some sort of gold standard.

[00:19:49] So Engelbrecht and Demeter contacted four of the principle, early 2020 authors of papers claiming the discovery of the new [00:20:00] coronavirus. They contacted the authors of the papers from early 2020, who had claimed that a new coronavirus had been identified and they requested confirmation of purification. But not a single one of them could provide it. All of the respondents admitted that they did not purify and did not obtain electron micrographs showing the degree of purification. So it's never happened. So four of the early and principle 2020 papers claiming this new discovery, conceded that they could not actually prove that the genetic material they were looking at was even viral in origin.

[00:20:36] Simply hasn't happened ladies and gentlemen, and this is huge. It has huge ramifications. Think about all the draconian stuff that's been going on, all the lockdown stuff, the clamp downs on basic freedoms. And you think this is all primarily driven by PCR tests and also the antibody tests.

[00:24:00] [00:24:00] [00:23:00] [00:22:00] [00:21:00] There was no evidence provided by the authors of early papers that were claiming that a new coronavirus had been discovered, and it was, you know, this COVID-19 thing.

[00:24:12] So, virologist Dr. Charles Calishman has told Demeter and Engelbrecht, he's admitted that he has been searching for a paper, just one paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and actually really purified and isolated, but he has yet to find one. It doesn't seem to exist. So again, we can't conclude the RNA gene sequences, the PCR tests, are calibrated for actually definitely belong to any particular virus.

[00:24:42] And there's certainly no conclusive evidence that those RNA sequences cause the symptoms of so-called COVID-19 and again, there's no actual specific definitive, specific particular symptom set symptomology for COVID-19. So how do we know that it's not just another cold or not just another [00:25:00] flu? And what's going on with these people who are hypoxic and can't breathe, can't get enough air into their lungs, enough oxygen? Well, that seems to be a different thing altogether. And I put it to you. That part of the problem is sources of stress, toxicity, EMF, pollution, 5g. Again, you know, the 60 gigahertz thing has been discussed elsewhere. We're not going to hone in on it too much, but clearly there are things that are putting our bodies under enormous stress that are not healthy.

[00:25:24] And we need to, we need to stop exposing ourselves and, you know, personally the 5G thing is just crazy. We need a definite upgrade of our safety in the technology department there, and 5G is not the solution at all. It's only making it worse.

[00:25:42] So PCR tests, they find fragments, they find nucleic acids. Now the inventor, Kary Mullis wrote an email back in 2013 to the widow of boxer, Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by a so-called HIV test. [00:26:00] And he basically said, "The specific fragment detected is determined by an arbitrary choice of DNA primers used, which becomes the ends of the amplified fragment.”

[00:26:12] Again, PCR is not a diagnostic. It's a manufacturing technique we saw as Crowe explains, you start with one molecule, a small amount of DNA and on each cycle, the amount doubles. So by the time you've done 30 cycles of multiplication, you have approximately a billion times more material than you started with.

[00:26:29] So it's an exponential increase. So as a manufacturing technique, he tells us it's great, "What they do is attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it, you shine a light at one wavelength and you get a response. You get light sent back to a different wavelength at a different wavelength. So they measure, the amount of light that comes back and that's the surrogate for how much DNA there is present”.

[00:26:51] Now he says, "I'm using the word DNA, but there's a step in RTPCR tests or PCR tests, which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It's using DNA, but it's like the complimentary RNA." So it can be confusing. Okay.

[00:26:53] Get this, we need to understand this. Cut off points are arbitrary and they vary between different labs doing PCR tests. Crowe tells us that he found in one paper, 37 cycles. And if you didn't get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you're considered negative. In another paper, the cutoff was 36, 37 to 40 were considered indeterminate. And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. He says, "I've only seen two papers that describe what the limit was.”

[00:26:54] So it's quite possible that different hospitals, different states, Canada versus the U.S., Italy versus France, are all using different cutoff, sensitivity standards of the COVID test. So if you cut off at 20, everyone would be negative. If you cut off at 50, you might have everyone positive. It just depends how many times you run the cycle.

[00:26:55] Now, Kary Mullis tells us in a book called, PCR Protocols, that if you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR. Professor, Stephen Bustin at Anglia Ruskin University has publicly acknowledged that the cut off points, the arbitrary nature of the cutoff points are actually a real problem.

[00:26:55] So it's not, we're not a bunch of fringe, nuts or kooks who are saying that there are issues here. And this is acknowledged by people in the know who really know their stuff. Now, Dr. David Rasnick, who was a colleague of David Crowe's, he's a biochemistry protease developer. he had an interview with Celia Farber, which is fantastic reading.

[00:26:56] And he told her, "You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms, huge amounts of it. You don't start with testing. You start with listening to the lungs. I'm skeptical if a PCR test is [00:27:00] ever true. It's a great scientific

[00:28:00] research tool. It's a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms, the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”

[00:28:59] Now [00:29:00] the FDA itself tells us that "RTPCR tests are intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acids." In other words, it's not quantitative, it's not meant to determine so-called viral load or the amount of a supposed virus in your body. That's not what it's for.

[00:29:20] Now, at this point, you probably thinking maybe you shouldn't go get tested, and David Rasnick would strongly agree with that. He says, when people ask him, "Don't do it!" he tells them, "No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing. But if you let it mean something, it can destroy your life.”

[00:29:36] Just like the HIV test did for Tommy Morrison. And like these tests are doing for other people right now. And having them unnecessarily, medically interfered with and treated.

[00:29:46] Now this next bit's important, ladies and gents, if you care about freedom and privacy, Rasnick tells us that every time someone takes a swab. that is a tissue sample of their DNA. It goes into a government database to track us. [00:30:00] So this is actually far from about being about our health and protecting us. This has nothing to do with that whatsoever. I think that's pretty obvious to everybody who is actually investigating it. So, as the authors of Virus Mania tell us, the short pieces of genes that are found using PCR are not complete and they don't even satisfy the definition of a gene. But in spite of the absurdity of it, all the faithful flock insists that once you paste these fragments together, these gene fragments can then depict the alleged virus' whole genome. And the only problem is that no one has ever produced a study showing an electron micrograph of this so-called reproduced virus.

[00:30:38] So let's switch over just briefly to HIV and give you some background on that. Because it's very relevant and you'll see this in the history of virology, just how much, dodgy stuff goes on behind the scenes that we don't get told about.

[00:30:54] So in March, 1997, two papers that were published in the journal, "Virology." And they [00:31:00] revealed that the vast majority of what had been previously called so-called "pure HIV" was actually impurities that were not HIV. And then the mixtures also included microvesicles that looked very similar to HIV under an electron microscope, but really are of cellular origin.

[00:31:15] And that's from page three of Crowe's Coronavirus Panic book. Even

[00:34:00] [00:33:00] [00:32:00] in the case of HIV, you know, it was simply being assumed that what was being looked at under the microscope was so-called HIV virus, but they were finding in truth that it had never been isolated. So there were these other cellular components like microvesicles that look similar to alleged HIV under an electron microscope, but they are actually produced inside the cell. So this is a huge problem.

[00:34:38] We find ourselves with the coronavirus situation, basically in the same situation. No one has ever definitively purified and isolated this so-called novel coronavirus. Despite what all the colourful computer pictures suggest. Now, Engelbrecht and Kohnlein go on to make some sensible suggestions.

[00:35:00] [00:35:00] "Why not suppose that virus or what we call a virus is actually a symptom of a disease and not the cause?"

[00:35:07] Now this, this brings us into terrain theory, which incidentally is much more, I would say, much more strongly based in empiricism and evidence than the virus theory is. So, in reality, ladies and gents endogenous viruses, that is internally produced viruses, were recognized a long time ago.

[00:35:26] However, the idea that a so-called virus could simply be a cellular byproduct of toxicity or stress goes against the sacrosanct dogma of virus theory. Which is basically that viruses are bad, viruses attack us from the outside. And when they get in, they cause specific types of disease.

[00:35:45] Dr. Andy Kaufman, who I interviewed not long ago recently exploded the foundational premises of the COVID-19 narrative and the aforementioned virus dogma, by demonstrating that what researchers had been assuming was a virus, which they called

[00:36:00] SARS-CoV-2, was actually much more likely to be an endogenously produced exosome. And, as Kaufman pointed out, Koch's postulates have not ever been fulfilled for COVID-19 nor SARS, nor any other coronavirus. And in fact, any virus at all ever.

[00:36:17] So you are, you might be wondering what are Koch's postulates? Why is that important? And it's pretty basic. Koch's postulates were basically four fold.

[00:36:27] Firstly, the pathogen has to be found in all instances of the disease. But not in healthy organisms, not in healthy people.

[00:36:34] The microorganism, the, you know, in this case, in the virus should be purified and isolated from the host and then grown in pure culture. This never happens.

[00:36:42] Thirdly, the cultured microbe, microorganism, should then cause disease when it's introduced into a healthy organism. Never been done.

[00:36:53] The microorganisms should be re-isolated then from the new host and identified as being identical to the original [00:37:00] microorganism.

[00:37:00] Now, these, these requirements have never actually been met. And this may be shocking to you, but it sounds like common sense. You know, this is the model, this is the warfare germ theory model. And, you know, we should be able to prove this stuff and demonstrate it, but it doesn't happen.

[00:37:15] So Amory Deveraux and Rosemary Frei, actually offered a devastating confirmation in an article that Koch's postulates have remained miserably unfulfilled in any meaningful sense all the way through til June, 2020. And the postulate involving purification and isolation and the sequencing of the virus as genome. And then the demonstration that it is not present in any other virus and then replicating it and cloning it, that hasn't been done.

[00:37:44] And then the next step of injecting the new copy of the virus into a statistically significant number of living hosts, which would usually be lab animals, and seeing whether those animals developed the discreet diagnostic symptoms associated with COVID-19. [00:38:00] Rather than developing any other diagnostic symptoms, belonging to other diseases or infections - that hasn't been done, it hasn't happened. You'd think it would have been, it seems basic and foundational, but alas hasn't happened.

[00:38:12] Now, a Canadian, a woman by the name of Christine Massey sent Freedom of Information Act requests, seeking confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 isolation. She sent these requests to five Canadian institutions. And they were Health Canada, the National Research Council of Canada, the University of Toronto, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center and the Region of Peel. Now, every single one of those institutions came back with the same answer. They searched, but they could not locate any record describing the isolation of any COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2 anywhere, ever, at any point. So if your mind isn't blown at this point, I, I figure you must have already been pretty [00:39:00] knowledgeable about this stuff. You've really done your homework.

[00:39:02] So in simple terms, COVID-19 turns out to be a huge misreading of the situation by the Pasteurian, anti-microbial cultists.

[00:39:11] The available evidence basically indicates that we are being defrauded. And this supposed strain of coronavirus is actually an internally produced cellular entity. And it's produced in response to stress and toxicity. It is not harmful. This genetic material that's produced by the cells is not hurting us. It's done in response to an injury, to a toxin, to electromagnetic pollution, for example. And some of these entities may be involved in cleaning up toxicity. So when our other defense mechanisms fail, these so-called viruses are produced and used for these purposes to support us. At least in some instances, this is what we are starting to discover or rediscover.

[00:39:55] Now Engelbrecht and Kohnlein, in Virus Mania, would seem to [00:40:00] stand vindicated in their suggestion that viruses could be a symptom and not a cause. Produced inside the cell, not invading from the outside in part of a defence mechanism.

[00:40:10] So you may be interested to hear that in 1983, Nobel prize winner, Barbara McClintock actually acknowledged that the genetic material of living beings can be constantly altered through stress or shocks. And this, her work, went a long way to informing the field or developing the field of epigenetics. And these, these shocks or stresses could be toxins, but also other materials that result in stress. And in turn, this can lead to the formation of entirely new genetic sequences, which were previously unknown and unverifiable. So, this is hardly, you know, a radical fringe idea. There's really good evidence, and the field of epigenetics tells us as plain as day that our environment affects us very profoundly, right down to the most [00:41:00] fundamental microbiological levels. It affects our gene expression. And McClintock, has confirmed that.

[00:41:06] Now, in a 2017 paper, much more recently, Nemeth and colleagues found that the antibiotic Ciprofloxacin - and I hope I'm saying that right - actually induces the release of both DNA, that is mitochondrial and chromosomal sequences and DNA binding proteins, on the external surfaces of these tiny cellular entities known as exosomes.

[00:41:31] Exosomes are released from cells during exocytosis, and they are pushed out, this cellular content is pushed out of the cell into the extracellular space. Exosomes are viewed as the smallest of the extracellular vesicles produced inside the cell measuring around 100 nanometers, which by coincidence, probably not coincidence at all, is the same size as the so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus as Andrew Kaufman has pointed out.

[00:42:01] [00:42:00] They're not external invaders. And we're going [00:43:00] to, [00:44:00] we're going to tie it [00:45:00] back to AIDS momentarily and HIV, because what happened there was we found that is the independent researchers and the scientists who are not controlled by big pharma. They found that poppers and immunosuppressant medications like antibiotics and antivirals can trigger oxidative stress and stir up antibody production.

[00:45:25] So that means that the serology tests or antibody tests will come out positive and likewise since new genetic sequences are generated by stressed cells, they can also create positive results in PCR tests. Remembering that the PCR is not as targeted and reliable as we have been led to believe. And they are not really intended to be used diagnostically. They're DNA manufacturing techniques. That's what a PCR does, it's a manufacturing technology.

[00:45:55] So, all of this stuff goes on inside ourselves without the need for us to invoke

[00:46:00] the concept of naughty invisible pathogenic viruses invading us and causing our disease.

[00:46:06] And you notice a difference in mentality there, is that if we accept that what we do and what we experience, and what we ingest, the kind of environment we choose to put ourselves in actually creates health outcomes, or, you know, our disease outcomes, then the responsibility comes back into our hands.

[00:46:24] It's on us, you know, we get to create health or disease, and it's our choice moment by moment, day by day. Whereas the germ theory, the warfare model of disease and health basically says, "Well, you're not responsible. It's just these naughty little microbes that have gotten into your system and made you sick." Which is a completely outdated view coming from the 1800's and actually has origins further back than that. But we won't go off on that tangent.

[00:46:50] Very few people have any idea how much shonky science has informed our current ideas about health and illness. Viruses, according to Val Turner of the Perth Group,

[00:47:00] can't even multiply in, say dead meat, like bacteria can. As he points out, viruses, so-called viruses, particles, that are obliged to replicate at the behest of living cells.

[00:47:11] So if they can't replicate outside of host cells, why are we being told to wear gloves just to handle a petrol pump? Why is outdoor play equipment cordoned off? Why are gym members forced to sanitize any piece of equipment they touch ad nauseum, in case of COVID?

[00:47:27] Viruses simply became articles of faith a long time ago, even with the electron micrograph available to image these particles supposedly, the issue of actual actually isolating and purifying the sample has remained a huge problem.

[00:47:43] The issue is simple, in order to know what you're looking at, ladies and gents, you have to be able to differentiate and separate it from other cellular material. You don't want to be confusing similar looking things. For example, alleged virus particles with other [00:48:00] similar virus-like entities inside the cell.

[00:48:03] And this is crucial because as multiple researchers have shown, even our healthy cells produce a range of particles that can look like supposedly invader viruses or so-called cancer viruses. In the words of Dr. James Hildreth speaking in the context of a new perspective on HIV, a new theory, he says, "The virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word.”

[00:48:28] And these tiny vesicles are produced internally inside the cell and ejected from the cell through the process of exocytosis and then used as messengers to other cells. So the virus paradigm, even in the mainstream is starting to shift and we're talking about exosomes and this kind of thing, but overall, the general outlook is woefully out of date.

[00:48:49] It's still in this, we're still in this warfare model. We're still in this germ theory, "we need to kill the gems, kill the microbes, and then we'll be healthy" kind of mentality and it's completely archaic. [00:49:00] There's no place for it in the 21st century, in my humble opinion.

[00:49:05] So, as Engelbrecht and Kohnlein point out in Virus Mania, which is a very, very good book, viruses, or so-called viruses, alleged viruses like polio, H5N1, Hep C, HPV, SARS, they've never been properly, truly isolated and characterized. By anybody.

[00:49:29] Now Kaufman's recent assessment of the literature bears this out. You may be surprised to learn that publishing fraudulent virology is actually par for the course for publications like Nature and other esteemed journals and outlets, but if you've seen my article about how broken the peer review system really is, then you won't be surprised by any of this. And you can find that article, I think it's called, "Why Peer Review Is A Sham". You'll find it by searching peer review on brendandmurphy.com. And I also made a YouTube [00:50:00] video about it a couple of years back.

[00:50:02] So the bottom line is this, if neither SARS, nor the SARS-related, SARS-CoV-2 has ever been truly isolated and identified categorically, then what did we just shut down the planet for? And why are masks being made mandatory anywhere against all the best evidence and information that we've got? Unless you're doing open heart surgery on someone you don't need a mask. You're actually doing more harm than good.

[00:50:28] Okay. Now the FDA actually is supporting what I'm saying here as far as PCR tests go. There's a publication that has told us that, "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus." Or that, "2019-N-CoV," - in other words, the novel coronavirus - "is the causative agent for clinical symptoms." And they also admit in their publication that, "This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens."

[00:50:58] A different FDA document [00:51:00] about the RTPCR tells us, "Positive test results do not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

[00:51:13] Now, if we go over to some instruction manuals for PCR technology, Creative Diagnostics, they have a manual that tells us, "The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment.”

[00:51:32] It also admits the technology only has a qualitative application, not quantitative. So, they're telling you it can't tell you how much so-called virus is in your body. Now it also indicates specificity for a number of viruses that are not coronaviruses. And yet they claim this technology is to be used for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The manual seems to indicate it can register a positive result for these other viruses that have nothing to do [00:52:00] with COVID-19. And they even admit the detection result is only for clinical reference and should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment.

[00:52:09] And yet as John Rappaport points out, this is exactly what health authorities around the world are doing. They are relying solely on this bogus test, so-called test, which is a form of DNA manufacturing technology to determine whether someone has an unproved novel coronavirus and is supposedly sick. It is just ludicrous.

[00:52:36] Now [00:53:00] it has been acknowledged that in the course of the conversion process, from RNA [00:54:00] to the DNA in the PCR process, the amount of DNA obtained with [00:55:00] the same RNA base material can vary widely. This is according to Stephen Bustin, so much that it can vary widely, so widely, even as far as a factor of 10, which is a whole order of magnitude. So considering that these sequences double every cycle, a slight variation becomes magnified and magnified and can therefore alter the end result, undermining the tests, supposed, informative value.

[00:55:54] So that's something to think about ladies and gents.

[00:55:57] The best thing I can suggest is take care of [00:56:00] yourself. Don't listen to the fear porn. Don't listen to the bogus medical tests, the numbers that they're telling us in the media, the new cases, all of this stuff is garbage. It's pure fluff. It has no basis in reality. And this PCR technology is being abused by the medical establishment. Used in a way that it was never intended to be used.

[00:56:19] And even the inventor of the technology has made that pretty clear. Unfortunately he died in 2019, so he can't, speak to this current, fake pandemic, but every year, every year, there's another one. Next year they'll probably simply continue to extend this one. This is a psy-op on a scale I've never quite seen before. It's unbelievable.

[00:56:38] So look after yourselves, ladies and gents, get some sunshine, eat clean, eat healthy. Get your 9.5 water into you . And I will be back with the next episode. We will talk about something a little different to change it up, take care, stay safe out there. You've been listening to Truthiverse with Brendan D Murphy on HealthyLife.net Radio.

[00:56:46] And we'll be back next week. Peace.