Jun 5, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

All kinds of difficult questions here. You make one point that hadn’t occurred to me due to my own biases. If remdesivir is an antiviral, why in the world would it be tested on patients after the virus replication cycle has completed(or nearly so)? What’s even more confounding is many had complained early on that many treatments were “studied” at that same point in the cycle ensuring that the treatment would fail. That is a “conspiracy” in my mind but if it is, why would Gilead allow themselves to fall into that same conspiracy? I know it’s expensive but nobody even tried to see how it would perform under ideal early conditions? Makes my head spin.

OTOH, it is really easy to see how this should never have been a “pandemic”. If any early treatment was allowed to demonstrate efficacy, the emergency would have been instantly over - even if it was remdesivir. The cost and limited supply would have accelerated investigation into other known or suspected treatments and ballgame over. It was the suppression of any early treatment that allowed this to spread throughout the world. A lot of very bad people benefitted enormously from this.

Also, I think you made an error in classifying ivermectin as an antibiotic early on in the article.

Expand full comment

Thanks. Fixed my 3 AM IVM parasitic/antibiotic gaffe.

Gilead might allow themselves to be part of "Reality Show Medicine" because they made something like $3B (last I heard) pimping remdesivir and got a lot of free publicity to boot? Not every actor plays the lead every time, right?

Expand full comment

Not a clever independent researcher pointing out difficult scientific truths at all; just another garden-variety conspiracy nutjob. Pity: I thought I had found someone writing something interesting on this topic.

Expand full comment

This is my last reply directed at this "Illy Whacker", but the above comment is an excellent example of standard comment section trolling. Hand-wave dismissal, backed by a sense of superiority, and trying to invalidate the information by attacking the person only (bonus points for bringing "conspiracy nutjob" into it). Apparently any sort of implication that businesses value profit over any other agenda and that those businesses use their power and money to attempt to influence public policy is the stuff of tinfoil hatters, not an obvious consequence of our worldwide economic and political systems.

I hope at least people like this get satisfaction over being in line with the general consensus. Truly a "good citizen"... for now. History has a funny way of redefining these folks after more time has elapsed.

Expand full comment
Jun 7, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

Hi Mathew - Other possibilties explored:

Echinacea - whopped the virus in vitro - in Switzerland (I used a combination Ech + Zinc + Vit C any time I am under stress and run down) https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210117/Research-suggests-St-Johns-Wort-and-Echinacea-could-protect-against-COVID-19.aspx ;

Artemesia - trials were going on but have not heard the results - but see Madagascar (it is part of my arsenal). Anti-malarials in general (as said by Dr Raoult in one of his earlier videos - also a friend who caught Covid in Gabon, was told that anti-malarials was their way of combatting Covid. And Apirivine - an antiviral produced by pharmicist in Benin, a small clinical trial in Burkina. Can send you docs on this, if interested. A lot of our high level politicians have used it and none have died. - will send links for the rest later.

Expand full comment
Jun 6, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

I was surprised to discover last fall that relatively cheap HEPA filter air purifiers are effective at removing coronavirus from the air (if the info that various manufacturers provide is correct, but it seems legit, because like with masks diffusion causes 'rona virions to get caught).

Imagine, for instance here in Los Angeles county, if people _knew_ this, and enough people bought $50-$100 air purifiers (or perhaps were given them which may have saved money in the long run) and for small businesses we could have prevented 1 million cases.

Expand full comment
Jun 6, 2021Liked by Mathew Crawford

(And that is without UV, you can also buy cheap air purifiers that also have UV which might make them even more effective.)

Expand full comment

Indeed. We bought one.

Expand full comment

For me it was clear from start that everything done was not for any good. It seems they wanted to in any way possible try to make the virus stronger than it is.

If you lower peoples immune systems the virus will look stronger.

Then all the propaganda in media and hysteria it creates. That you dont do if its a deadly disease so this is also just a trick to make the virus look stronger than it is.

This has been planned for a long time. WHO changed the definition for a pandemic after the bird flue 2005. With old definition this would never been pandemic.

If they didnt do all these tricks this would have never been.

It has nothing to do with the virus, its not a threat. Its just about the outcome. They wanted to create this chaos for some reason.

It will be an interesting fall when the flue season starts, more chaos to come.

Expand full comment

The answers to all of these questions to me are painfully obvious: they threaten the revenue to be gained from the vaccination campaign.

Expand full comment

How can anyone trust what you say when you misrepresent the content of articles? I got as far as these two links: "dies quickly to UV light and even ordinary light" and "there are wavelengths that kill the virus and are safe for human exposure". I looked, and they did not say what you say they do. Either you are not clever enough to understand them (but they are not hard); do not care enough about being accurate; or you are deliberately creating propaganda. Which is it?

Expand full comment

As you say, time is short: when I come across stuff like that in the first few paragraphs of an article, I stop: the opportunity cost of continuing is just too high.

Expand full comment

What about your goal here, Illy Whacker? Seen your comments across many of these articles in recent days and they are mostly vague insults with the common troll projection tactic of "you don't understand." (Odd behavior for someone who is talking about the "opportunity cost of continuing"). The UV/ordinary light link is exactly as it sounds, even though it contains the unsourced declaration that vaccination is the safest course of action. The "safe wavelengths" article I guess could be interpreted to be overstated, as it does say that more research is required (then do it, I say!), but Brenner does say “the evidence we have acquired to date, even at these much higher doses than one would use in the real world, are all reassuring.”

The accusations of propaganda are laughable in the face of the "information" promoted in mainstream and social media on a daily basis. Reading Matthew's articles, which have countless links to the source material, I see an honest effort to get to the bottom of these issues and enough information for the curious reader to make their own conclusions. I get the sense though that you have already made up your mind and cannot possibly consider that the dominant paradigms are potentially incorrect, regardless of how history has shown that very often they are (or do not have the general public's health and interests as a primary goal). Fortunately, your attempts to smear this research with your unsubstantiated attacks in the comments will not likely fool many who actually take the time to read and digest the material presented.

Expand full comment

Would be nice if they could prove existence and characterisation of SARS-Cov-2. All we have is a digitally assembled sequence from a computer viral database (that is also questionable as to the sequences are built by ASSUMPTIONS (not evidence) embedded in the algorithms. Now there was at this stage no proof of Isolation yet there is now a sequence?

The tool RT-PCR maybe the problem that is creating all the confusion. We know full well that is cannot determine infection or non-infection. We know it cannot determine any specific virus if one actually exists. We know the Corman-Drosten PCR protocol has been questioned and no response is forthcoming as yet. We also know the tool used is not a diagnostic tool in the first place but is being used for that purpose.

The same tool generates the "cases" which are in fact a meaningless number.

It is the same tool being used by Governments to determine their response. One of them was lockdowns. Another was masks? Masking healthy people. isolating healthy people? Destroying economies?

Are we not chasing tails? Misdiagnosing and applying the wrong treatment protocols because of this? The umbrella created term COVID19 points to this.

What are the HEPA filters removing? Toxins from pollution? How do we know they are removing the "virus"? That is assumed not proven.

What is the UV light doing? Destroying a virus or breaking down the structure or binding(weak boundaries) of the toxic chemicals.

Every year we get Influenza like illness and colds during winter, Did we all die and did we destroy our livelihoods then?

Maybe we need to remove the Virtual Reality headsets, switch of the TV's and stop fear panic and groupthink hysteria.

Expand full comment

Under the assumption that the virus is real, which I believe having talked to a few hundred doctors and scientists offline, then I believe a certain basic set of characteristics. The high level of aerosolization has no contradicting evidence I've seen, and has been seen after GoF research in feret transmission. High aerosolization is bad when a bunch of people have to stay indoors, but good if you want the opportunity to kill it.

I am glad that there are many people keeping very open minds on all levels of detail. No matter what I say I think, I allow myself room to rethink, possibly even from the foundation.

Expand full comment

Thanks Mathew.

There are many doctors who have been trained in the Germ Theory and fully believe in viruses. Its what they were taught to believe. It takes something to get people to admit they may have been wrong.

If there were a virus called SARS-Cov-2, surely those making the claim of their existence would gladly show the proof. Every claim has been found to have huge discrepancies. FOI all over the world have come back negative for proof. CDC concocted a real BS story. see this post - https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/

It is a well known fact that Investigative journalist for the Virus mania team are a still waiting for an answer of SARS from RKI since 2005.

"This goes back to the early 2005 where question was asked of Robert Kock Institute in Germany on the SARS 1 issue.

Question 1. Please name the studies that indisputably show that the SARS virus …. has been proven to exist (complete purification), isolation and definition and characterisation of biochemical properties plus electron micrographs).

Question 2. Please name studies that indisputably show that the virus named above causes disease (and also other factors like malnutrition, toxins, etc do not at least co-determine the course of disease). Complete aetiology.

To date despite repeated questioning our team at virus mania has not had a single study named to us."

Note there is no proof of Isolation of SARS-COV1 so how can there be a claim that SARS-COV2 is closely related? The "virologists" have made a statement that this is so? For that matter how can they determine that there are strains of variants or mutations?

My question on the UV light is a valid one as UV light is used for sterilization in the water industry. Ultraviolet light is used to kill or inactivate microorganisms by destroying nucleic acids and disrupting their DNA. Viruses we are told are dead and need live cells to replicate. So how can UV light kill something that is dead? Just questioning the logic.

Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and Sally Fallon Morell published a statement concerning the existence of SARS-CoV-2. https://www.andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

i) No "virus" has ever been shown to cause (by itself) certain symptoms in humans or animals.

ii) Therefore, there is no scientific basis to the claim that any "virus" exists as a mechanism for disease causation in humans or animals (including "SARS-CoV-2").

iii) Consequently, there can be no possible merit to any "vaccine" since you can't make a "vaccine" for a "virus" you can't even prove to exist.

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI) Tom Cowan

“From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has

been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolation.

You will hear the following excuses for why actual isolation isn’t done:

1. There were not enough virus particles found in samples from patients to analyze.

2. Viruses are intracellular parasites; they can’t be found outside the cell in this manner.

If No. 1 is correct, and we can’t find the virus in the sputum of sick people, then on what evidence do we think the virus is dangerous or even lethal? If No. 2 is correct, then how is the virus spread from person to person? We are told it emerges from the cell to infect others. Then why isn’t it possible to find it?”

Ask what you need to see viruses and you are told: "Electron microscope." Ask when the electron microscope was invented, and you are told: "1931." Ask when viruses were discovered, which you can only see under an electron microscope, and you are told: "1895."

Anyway lets keep our minds open. We have been told for years that viruses exist yet they are too small for normal light microscopy to visualise. Its only since the invention of the electron microscope which can only really "see dead matter".

Expand full comment

He doesn't 'believe' in germs! Is this why your Substack is called Rounding the Earth? Do you actually believe it is flat?

Expand full comment

Don't be Silly Illy

Expand full comment