So why aren't we doing experiments on animals to determine the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines? Answer: Because nobody wants to know the answer.
The virus against which COVID vaccines have been developed has been isolated and experiments could be done on animals in specialized labs that can safely handle certain viruses, rather than conducting an experiment on us. Such experiments could include biodistribution studies and could elucidate what happens to animals that are vaccinated and then exposed to the virus.
There is no interest on the part of the FDA to require animal experimentation and vaccine manufacturers certainly have no interest in doing such experiments.
The cost to do the required studies would be $10m. If everyone reading this substack became a paid subscriber for $5/month, we would raise the funds to conduct these experiments.
I rely on expert opinions of people who I trust for certain issues like whether or not the virus has been “isolated.” It’s a reasonable approach if you are careful about which experts you trust.
All of the expert friends I’ve asked (including Robert Malone and Li-Meng Yan) tell me that “the virus has been isolated.” So it has been “isolated” according to their belief in what the term means.
Others interpret the term differently and would claim the virus hasn’t been isolated. In fact, according to their definition, no virus in history has ever been isolated. That’s important to know. They use that as justification for their belief that there is no virus here since viruses don’t exist at all.
Both sides are right because they define the term differently. It’s all semantics.
Some people will disagree with what I just wrote
I knew my statement would light a fire before I wrote this. When I asked on my telegram channel “has the virus been isolated?” I received 295 comments which is around 10X more than normal.
When I posted this article on Telegram, it again lit up with 284 comments as of Jan 9.
Various commenters are calling each other flat earthers, etc. Nobody on the chat has ever ordered a product from ATCC.
The arguments go flying about double-blind studies to “prove” you got the right virus, the use (or misuse) of Koch’s postulates, whether Andrew Kaufman and Stefan Lanka are “for real” or “nut jobs,” whether the FOIA asks were contrived to elicit a null response, and what the definition of “isolation” really is (does it mean purified or not, for example).
If you watch this video at 4:00, you’ll see even virologists themselves don’t agree on the definition of “isolate.” Does it require purification or not? If we don’t agree on the terminology, there is no end to the arguments. And that’s exactly what we see on the chat.
That us why debating Kaufman and his collaborators is fruitless: each side will dig in on their own definitions and settle nothing. I just got off the phone with James Lyons-Weiler who debated this issue (he didn’t recall who he debated with) but his take is that it went nowhere and both sides were unmoved after the “debate.”
These three articles are a good read:
Stefan Lanka lost his $100,000 bet in the lower court because someone found 6 papers that together proved Lanka was wrong. The Supreme Court in Germany overturned it because Lanka put terms in his bet that it had to be a single paper. So Lanka was fundamentally wrong and simply won on a technicality.
DontCoitusMyCOTUS (despite the colorful language) points out:
Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lanka, Tom Cowen are misleading people with their arguments. Kaufman, for example, is a psychiatrist who admits he has never done virus research.
“Hysterical watching a <insults redacted> demand virus isolated to their imaginary specs and dismissing ATCC which is the world’s largest oldest and most important micro organism repository in the world.”
The FOIA document requests are a “stunt designed to fail”
“Virus not isolated”: the definition Kaufman, Cowan, etc. use is different than what scientists who publish papers on virus isolation use. This is why there is such disagreement on this question because different people interpret “has been isolated” differently.
If you search for “Isolation of Wuhan Virus” you’ll find many papers in PubMed and NIH in many countries with details on how isolation was done (for example this one and this one). You can see a TEM picture here. Here are more references.
ATCC 351 variant RNA for sale is not in culture.
Don Newmeyer points out: “People insisting that the virus hasn’t been isolated or that they’re computer generated are displaying their ignorance of modern biology. Virus isolation and genomic sequencing is just basic methodology nowadays.”
Collapsse Podcast wrote: “The debate over whether or not it's been isolated is a distraction”
Matthew wrote: “I'm surprised you're giving Doctor Weed the time of day. I gave up ages ago debating with these virus denying folk. No matter what evidence you provide them, they choose to dismiss it in favor of what a psychiatrist says who's been caught lying and unable to provide a scientific rebuttal to the papers which prove it's existence. Kaufman didn't even understand how to read a reverse primer for a pcr test and was claiming they're testing for human DNA.” He showed a clip where Kaufman admits, “I’ve never done virus research”
Given a live virus, you can use it to test the vaccine
You can test the vaccine easily as well. Give the vaccine to the animals, wait, then expose them to the virus. You can do biodistribution studies of the vaccine as well; you don’t even need the virus for those studies.
The real question is ... has it been isolated from a HUMAN subject w/o passing it through (say) Monkey Kidney Cells? Because there is plenty of evidence out there that says it hasn't been isolated directly (no intermediaries) from a HUMAN subject.
I know that Sabine Hazan verified that the sequence of the virus obtained from ATCC matched exactly what she found in people who have the virus. Do these isolates have other stuff in them? How were they created? I don’t know because I haven’t analyzed them personally. But my scientist friends seem happy with them. At $2,000 a shot, I don’t think they’d market the product if it was contaminated and useless. Am I wrong?
So today we have the ability to do animal experiments to assess the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and boosters.
Why aren’t we doing animal experiments?
A critical thinker might then ask, so why aren’t we experimenting on animals instead of humans?
The answer is simple: because nobody wants to know the answer. The FDA doesn’t and neither do the drug companies. That’s why the FDA isn’t requiring the drug companies to do it. So it doesn’t get done.
In fact, the FDA is never going to require them to do this; the top management of the FDA knows it would kill the vaccine program if they did this. That’s why they don’t ask. Because they don’t want to know.
One commenter suggested that testing on animals is unethical; that we should test on politicians instead.