Skip to the content
From Kathy Dopp:
All based on asymptomatic, non-infectious cases and mostly false positive PCR tests and he’s forcing more businesses out of business! It is far safer for young, healthy persons to get infected now when they’re young and, thus, likely have lifelong t-cell immunity, than take the serious risks of lifelong chronic illnesses a Covid vaccine will entail. These lockdown, curfews, distancing, business closure, and masking requirements are horrifically abusive of the young.
I think a “no,” I mean a “yes,” but it’s all wrong; that is, I think I disagree….
There’s been a troubling new development.
A group of my departmental colleagues has demanded that the dean order a “review” of my “conduct,” with an eye toward “disciplinary” action—i.e., my termination (or so they hope). The dean has been instructed by the Office of Legal Counsel that he must order said “review,” so he’s appointed an associate to do so.
My colleagues’ “case” is based on a barrage of falsehoods, or delusions, and gross distortion of the facts. They claim that I discouraged my students from wearing masks (I did no such thing), and—worse—that I “attack” students, maintain a classroom that’s not “safe,” and engage in “hate speech.”
That fantasy is based, first of all, on their assertion that (get this) _I_ attacked the student who attacked ME: that it’s because of ME that she got nasty pushback after tweeting her demand that I be fired. (I too was attacked on Twitter, but never mind.) They also charge that I attacked the department—i.e. THEM—in my petition (which doesn’t mention them). Thus they justify attacking me by casting me as the aggressor, with that student and themselves as my poor victims (much as Hitler did with Poland).
On top of that projective fantasy, they hammer at my putative “transphobia,” based on three of my online writings—a short piece I sent out to this list, and two facetious Facebook comments. Thus they’ve revived a smear that was refuted back in March, by NYU’s Office of Equal Opportunity, after one of the letter’s signatories reported me for those “hateful” writings, and I was questioned on the matter for an hour. The OEO’s lawyers quickly grasped that what I’d written was about transgender IDEOLOGY, NOT trans individuals; and that I’d made some wholly non-offensive points (about biological males competing in girls’ and women’s sports, and radical medical intervention in the sexual development of children). So they immediately dropped it.
Although I beat that rap, my colleagues are using it again, to make the absolutely groundless charge that I’m a monstrous bigot who demeans his students. As I told the dean this afternoon, this hallucination is, to put it mildly, utterly at odds with the consistent popularity of my classes, my student evaluations over many years, and the scores and scores of glowing emails I’ve received from students thanking me profusely for the great experience they’d had with me (the sort of testament that dedicated teachers cherish).
So this “review” is needless—and, I figure, driven not just by my colleagues’ ferocious zeal as Social Justice warriors (let me note that several colleagues did not sign the letter), but, no doubt, also by higher powers within the university, interested in somehow shutting down an irritating figure with some little public profile. That I have questioned propaganda narratives in which NYU is invested heavily (masks, COVID panic, and—above all—unsafe vaccines, just to name a few) certainly is not irrelevant to this renewed assault.
I will be sending out my colleagues’ letter (names redacted) for your perusal, with further commentary. Meanwhile, I am very grateful for your warm support, and hope you will continue to share my petition, which isn’t just about my plight but about the free speech rights of all who question propaganda narratives by seeking for the blacked-truth, and doing their best to tell it.
Article link:
https://www.activistpost.com/2020/11/tenured-nyu-professor-under-fire-for-mask-comments.html
From Michael Green:
The only reason to spend time on Jon Rapport’s argument is that it distracts from the undisputable facts and should be quashed to avoid wasting more time.
We all agree that, if there is a SARS-CoV-2, it presents at most a minor medical challenge that has already been solved, and is being used as a pretext to shape the world into a medical martial law dystopia veering toward constant monitoring, tracking and control via external and internal devices powered by 5-G while wealth is extracted upwards. There was never a political point for 9/11 researchers to argue about whether a plane hit the Pentagon when all agreed that there was overwhelming interlocking convergent evidence that the Towers and B7 were taken down by controlled demolition, which implies the Big Picture on which we all agreed: 9/11 was a major false flag meant to reshape the world and should have been our sole focus.
Meryl Nass hasn’t paid sufficient attention to Jon Rappoport’s argument to appreciate how defective it is. Jon’s entire argument regarding the CDC document rests on a slanted systematic misreading of its text that becomes a deranged chant that the CDC as much as admits that it had no isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/
The CDC document simply states that it does not have a quantified isolate of the virus—i.e., it does not know the amount that it has—and it needs to know the minimal amount required to detect the virus with circa 95% sensitivity, so instead it is using a sample of full-length RNA of known density (titer) to determine that minimal amount. The CDC states that it wants to:
…determine the lowest detectable concentration of 2019-nCoV at which approximately 95% of all (true positive) replicates test positive. …Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) (emphasis added) https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
The CDC never says or implies that it lacks an isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus; it says only that it does not know how much it has so cannot determine the minimal amount needed to detect it reliably (95% sensitivity). Please read the original Oct 8, 2020 Rappoport article in detail and compare it with the CDC statement. I am no friend of the CDC, whose criminal skullduggery in generating this faux plague is legion.
Meryl says that Kaufman is science-light but doesn’t say quite enough how. I have endured enough Andrew Kaufman MD interviews and articles to risk sounding foolish or doing him an injustice. Kaufman’s key objections rely on applying Koch’s Postulates, so he argues even when a new virus is isolated this doesn’t prove it causes COVID—this is Rappoport’s SOUP objection—until and unless it is isolated and used to infect someone who then comes down with the same disease. Kaufman fails to recognize that we can skip that step if there is a distinct clinical syndrome from whose victims that new virus is reliably extracted and identified and there is and has been. Kaufman’s dotty ideas that it might be something toxic fail before the facts. Consider a great honest practitioner like Didier Raoult, whose studies routinely showed using (fallible!) PCR testing that the virus was quickly cleared by HCQ + antibiotic, and of course even better with Zelenko’s zinc added. See also Kristian Anderson’s “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2” that gives the precise genetic make-up including a gross insertion of 12 nucleotides into the virus genetic code that was needed to produce the furin cleavage site allowing the virus to enter the host cell. (Anderson performs the disinformation miracle of declaring this potent evidence of SARS-CoV-2 being a bioweapon—the codon insertions that belongs to no near relative of this virus—to mean just the opposite, that the virus naturally evolved.) Nature Medicine | VOL 26 | April 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9 So, it’s a virus, and easily treatable, and a thin reed on which the NWO is now so firmly perched for the vast majority of its victims.
From Meryl Nass:
Dr. Thomas Cowan believes that no viruses exist. Dr. Andrew Kaufman is science-light. Those are Mr. Rappoport’s guiding lights.
Why did that CDC document written in February say CDC had no quantifiable virus samples available? Because CDC was scamming the US citizenry by creating a faulty test for Covid (and they were quickly informed that it was faulty, but they did not fix it) and refusing to allow anyone else to offer a valid test, until Feb 29. Of course they had the virus. But they were not sharing their information nor any samples with anyone until forced, on Feb 29. I suspect this was part of a plan to allow the virus to spread through the US in the absence of a means to detect it with tests. But perhaps it was simply gross incompetence and hubris.
You can call SARS-2 anything you want, but it acts like a virus. But it is transmitted between people and some animals, whether you choose to believe it is alive or dead. It is grown in labs. It is transmitted between animals in labs. It can be destroyed (I call it killed) in a broth, petri dish, test tube with a number of drugs. And its relatives were experimented on in labs, after the progenitors were taken from bats. And you have to grow them (viruses or whatever you call them) in labs in order to experiment on them.
SARS-2 grows in cells in the back of the nose and throat at first, then moves into more cell types and can kill you by initiating cell death, cytokine storm, hyoercoagulability.
No poisons do that. It can only happen if the virus GROWS and MULTIPLIES.
Here are some references, and I have included the beginning of the 3’d reference so you can see for yourselves if this is a virus, has been isolated, cultured, etc.
Akst J. Australian Lab Cultures New Coronavirus as Infections Climb. The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/australian-lab-cultures-new-coronavirus-as-infections-climb-67031.
2. CDC has grown the COVID-19 virus in cell culture, which is necessary for further studies, including for additional genetic characterization. The cell-grown virus was sent to NIH’s BEI ResourcesRepository for use by the broad scientific community.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7543926/
Introduction
Virus culture has been regarded as the reference standard of diagnostics for decades, as it allows for identification and isolation of active, replicating virus.1 However, more rapid and sensitive molecular techniques, typically nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), such as real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are now the major routine diagnostic tests used in virology diagnostic laboratories. Particularly with a novel or emerging virus such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), there are certain circumstances where virus isolation for diagnostic and research purposes remains important, including:1.To test convalescent sera for neutralising potential, for example as therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in intensive care units.
2.To determine whether infectious virus is present, particularly to inform return to work for previously infectious individuals such as health care workers; individuals with persistent PCR positive results on serial follow-up samples for viral clearance purpose; or when to discontinue transmission-based precautions for patients.2
3.As first line testing for SARS-CoV-2 inactivation efficacy of potential preventative or therapeutic compounds.
4.For use as positive controls in the evaluation of molecular assays.3
The first culture of SARS-CoV-2 internationally was reported by Caly and colleagues in Melbourne, Australia on 28 January 2020 and the cultured virus was rapidly shared globally with other researchers.4 The World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus a virus of Public Health Emergency of International Concern shortly afterwards on 30 January, and a pandemic on 11 March 2020.
Initial studies of SARS-CoV-2 virus culture were performed using the monkey kidney cell lines Vero-CCL81 and Vero E6.4 , 5 However, various cell lines have been reported as able to sustain SARS-CoV-2 growth and offer a closer approximation to the human immune response. We review here the growth of the virus in existing standard (monkey and human) and engineered cell lines. We discuss the utility of human cell lines in virus culture, and the potential for using these in human immunological and other studies.
SARS-CoV-2 virus isolation
The SARS-CoV-2 virus requires the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor6 for entry into the host cell. This receptor is expressed in lung epithelial cells as well as endothelial cells lining the arteries, veins, capillaries, small intestine, testes, renal tissue and cardiovascular tissue.7, 8, 9 Infection of the host cell also relies on priming of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein by the transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS).6 The ACE2 receptor is also used as the receptor for both SARS-CoV and the related human respiratory alphacoronavirus NL63.8Clinical samples being collected for SARS-Cov-2 nucleic acid amplification tests are upper respiratory tract samples, typically sampling both the nose/nasopharyngeal and throat (oropharyngeal) with (preferably) flocked swabs, as recommended by the Australian Public Health Laboratory Network10 and World Health Organization.11 Lower respiratory tract samples including sputum (if produced) and bronchoalveolar lavage are collected if the lower respiratory tract is suspected to be involved, although risk of virus aerosolisation is higher.11 The virus is detectable by reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) in the stool of ∼30% patients, and while this may not be infectious, SARS-CoV-2 in one stool sample from a Chinese patient who died from COVID-19 was reported to be culturable after second round passage.12 The virus is not commonly detected in urine; only one of nine patients had a very low level of SARS-CoV-2 in urine detected by real-time PCR in a study by Peng and colleagues.13
I have a laptop that’s making a high-pitched sound when I’m on Zoom. Is that a thing, with laptops that are a few years old?
If you know please get back to me.
Thank you.
An eloquent and learned lecture on how COVID-19 was deployed to transform Britain into a totalitarian state.