Covid Misconceptions Debunked
The main problem with the alternative media's response to the covid crisis was that they confused contrarianism with critical thinking. When it was announced in early 2020 that there was a pandemic - the alt media en masse simply took the stance - "no there isn't - if the TV and the MSM News says there is, then it stands to reason that the opposite is true." - This is not critical thinking, it's not even free thinking - it's a mantra.
So as the evidence stacked up that some sort of worldwide pandemic might be afoot the alternative media doubled and tripled down - swearing blind that no such virus had been proven to exist, or that mainstays of medical procedure used for thirty years were now not fit for purpose, that they knew of absolutely no one that had been affected by this so called disease and that the whole thing was pretty much a hoax. Some even went so far as to convince themselves that viruses themselves don't exist - bless your heart.
Some people took the other route - that the virus was a world ending event and many gleefully dusted off their prep bags from 2012 hoping against hope that the apocalypse would soon be with us.
Then a new voice on the scene called Thomas Cowan suggested, with no evidence, that 5G was deadly and suddenly the alternative media had another suspect for any deaths or illnesses that may occur.
Thomas Cowan had been suspended from his job as a Dr since 2017 when he prescribed an unlicensed medicine to a woman suffering from cancer – without telling her that this product was not an approved medicine. He relinquished his licence in 2020. Then he started selling alternative consultations for $375 a pop and became terrified of the coming upgrades to the phone system. He claimed that the 1918 Spanish flu was actually caused by the worldwide introduction of radio waves by commercial radio stations – this was easily debunked as the first commercial radio began two years later in 1920.
This 5G will kill us all was simply a re-treading of the previous 4G will kill us all, which was a re-run of the old 3G will kill us all - this in itself was a re-imagining of the 2G will kill us all theory which was seeded by the mobile phones will kill us all theory which came from the tetra masts will end all life on earth theory which was actually an extension of the all electricity lines will eventually push the entire planet of this mortal coil trope.
Now are there examples of people who are extremely sensitive to electronic devices? – yes. But that is very rare and not at all what this theory was about. Also are there devices that utilise 5G for weaponry – again yes. The most cited is the Active Denial System which works like an invisible heat ray. It heats the skin causing whoever falls in its path to retreat. However this uses huge amounts of power and even still can't actually penetrate the skin. So comparing the phone system to this is like comparing a matchstick to a flame thrower.
He claimed that Wuhan – the seeming start point of the outbreak was the first city to have 5G. This was also not true – Cities in the USA had 5G long before Wuhan. Also places with no 5G network such as Iran, Japan and Malaysia had large outbreaks of Sars Cov 2. There wasn't even a correlation let alone a connection.Misconceptions coloured the narrative
Since then a series of misconceptions have plagued the alt media and tainted their understanding of current world events. They have coloured the narrative – that is to say assumed something to be true and followed clues that seem to support this erroneous notion. So what are these misconceptions?
- The virus doesn't exist and has never been proven to exist
- Sars Cov 2 has never fulfilled Koch's postulates
- Viruses are actually exosomes
- Viruses themselves don't exist
- The PCR tests don't look for viruses
- The Inventor of the PCR said they were not suitable for looking for disease of any kind
- The tests give over 90% false positive results
- Sars Cov 2 was taken off the HCID register and therefore is of no significance
- People are dying with the disease and not of it
- The tests are run at too high a CT rate
- Death certificates have been faked and death rates artificially inflated
- FOIA requests show that the virus doesn't exist and no one has a sample
- It's just the flu
- Asymptomatic spread is a myth
- Masks don't work and can be dangerous
- It has a 99.9% survival rate
- Not that many people died
Every single one of these is false – and provably so. Now it's perfectly OK to be wrong – you can't learn if you don't get stuff wrong first. But once you have new information you should adapt and change your perspective based on new understanding. The alternative media has clung slavishly to a whole raft of easily disprovable tropes. What they should do is reappraise their position. But they haven't. These tropes form the foundation of the majority of the alt medias understanding of the current world events – but when your foundations aren't solid – your entire perspective becomes skewed.
The line often quoted is "question everything" – so why isn't that being done?
Now before we start – do I think that Covid is a terrible world ending event? No. But it isn't nothing – and pretending it is nothing hasn't helped and won't help. You should be holding the government to account – they are using this crisis to destroy and privatise the NHS and denying the existence or potential consequences of this disease actually helps the government accomplish this whilst insulating them from criticism for their failures.So let's question everything
So let's look at these misconceptions that have been clouding the judgement of the alternative media.But, but…has it been Isolated?
One of the silliest and easiest things to disprove that certain members of the alternative media are still clinging too is the idea that the Sars Cov 2 virus has never been isolated. What does this mean? - Isolation is the process of culturing the virus on a host cell and then removing its genome to prove that you have a newly found entity. Spoilers - this has been done literally thousands of times. It was first done in Korea in early 2020 and since then by thousands of independent laboratories across the globe. Don't believe me? - Simply go to Google scholar and look up isolated Sars Cov 2 and behold the many, many examples. Some say - well when they are looking for it they are just following the computer programme the Chinese told us was the virus - but that simply isn't how it works. Thousands of places have isolated the virus themselves independently and each time they find the exact same genetic material - proving that it is the same thing. Oh by the way here is the genome.
The concept of the genome being faked somehow by the isolation process also falls flat as they have extracted the virus from lung fluid and urine - directly from a subject. Here is the isolate taken from lung fluid.
Here are other examples of laboratories independently isolating the virus:
So where did this nonsense idea gain traction?Well it was started by a dubious character named Andrew Kaufman who pretends to be qualified in biology from prestigious MIT - but he isn't, this is simply a lie he tells to try and give himself credibility. He's actually a twice struck off GP - struck off for stealing from patients in South Carolina and later struck off again in Ohio - who was a failing psychiatrist in New York before becoming a grifter on the internet. Here are the details of him being struck off in South Carolina.
Kaufman lied and told the alt media that the virus had never been isolated. Strangely he used the actual paper that showed the first isolation of the virus – this one. It's even in the title of the paper!
His grift is similar to many of the cons on the internet – it relies on people not reading his evidence and just believing him due to his credentials – which you may remember are fake.
Firstly he claimed that the virus hadn't been shown to exist – now this isn't complicated it is just a lie – it's a bald faced lie. He then went on to explain (and remember he isn't qualified and doesn't know the first thing about any of this) that by culturing the virus on a cell it contaminated it. This is just flat out bullshit – he is literally hoping no one understands the process of how viruses are discovered. He also claimed that no control was used in the experiment. This was also a lie – see the control here.
Yeah but has it passed Koch's postulates?He then later went on to say that further proof that this isolated virus was fake, was the fact that the Korean paper stated that the virus hadn't gone through Koch's postulates. Kaufman seized on this as some sort of smoking gun and repeated it to the alt media who repeated it en masse. Koch's postulates, simply put is where you isolate a virus and infect an animal with it, then you allow that animal to infect another animal from which you extract and isolate the same virus. This proves that the virus is transmissible and can also prove the harmful effects of the virus. Now to be fair, the Korea paper did say that they didn't fulfil Koch's postulates – they didn't have time to put it through an animal. Case closed then? Well no – because shortly after that another laboratory did transfect it through a series of macaque monkeys. See here:
We can also see the results of that infection on the cells here.
Following that hundreds of labs across the globe also transfected their own animals. So this idea that the virus has never been isolated or passed through Koch's postulates simply isn't true. It's a lie and anyone who repeats it is either a liar or grossly misinformed.
What are Koch's postulates that people keep raging about and have they been fulfilled?
- The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease. - Yes they have done this, identified the genome and have a test for it.
- The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture. Yes we have done this.
- The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host. Yes they have done this with monkeys.
- The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host. Yes they were able to extract it from a second monkey infected by the first.
So what did Kaufman think was happening – and remember he is liar and a total fraud who deceives people about his credentials and he is making shit up, so you will be forgiven if you notice that his "theory" doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Well he said that he had looked at the work of one Dr Hildreth who had previously made the claim ""the virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word." Not Sars Cov 2 mind – he was talking about HIV but as I said this is all nonsense and bullshit from Kaufman. Anyway with this quote in mind Kaufman decided that viruses don't exist and that all viruses are in fact exosomes – an exosome is a cell in the body that is used to communicate between other cells – they aren't viruses. How did he come to this conclusion? Well he saw a picture of some exosomes and thought – crikey that looks a little bit similar to Sars Cov 2, sort of.
Now here's where everything collapses. Kaufman obviously just Googled "exosomes" and found a picture. He then went on with his claims. The main problem is that he totally misidentified what he was looking at. He was looking at an Epstein Barr virus. You see he saw the exosomes (tiny dots) coming out of the virus forming a ring around a cell in the centre. Sars Cov 2 is a corona virus so has a corona/ring of spikes around it. He mistook the exosomes leaving the Epstein Barr virus for the ring on Sars Cov 2. The fact that he uses a picture of a virus to try and convince you that viruses don't exist and are misidentified exosomes should be your first indication that he is full of shit.
Also I feel it is important to understand that you don't identify viruses by looking at them under a microscope – you identify their unique genome.
You see he thought that the thing above – which you remember he misidentifies – looks kind of, sort of a bit like the thing below. Science!
Later he compounded himself even further by not understanding what Sars Cov 2 looks like either. In the picture below he thought the virus was the outside bits attacking a human cell – he didn't realise that the whole thing is Sars Cov 2. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Finally the source of his theory publically refuted him. Hildreth was a Dr that was part of early studies into HIV and AIDs. When Hildreth stated that "the virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word." He was talking about how HIV uses a Trojan horse mechanism to remain hidden from the immune system. It was nothing to do with Sars Cov 2 which at that time hadn't been discovered. He had this to say about Kaufman's theory.
Also Kaufman totally got the dimensions of exosomes wrong too. Here are the erroneous qualities of exosomes that he pushes.
And here are the real measurements and qualities – yet again it appears that he just made stuff up and no one bothered to check.
So to sum up – he is of poor character having stolen from patients and been struck off twice, he lied about his qualifications, he has never done any lab work at all especially no work with viruses, he didn't identify a virus but used the picture of this virus to try and say viruses don't exist, he misidentified the Sars Cov 2 virus as a human cell, he thought covid 19 was called that because there were 18 previous ones – yes he did do that it's on film, he misunderstood the main point of the theory from which he derived his own theory, he has cited precisely zero evidence to support his assertions and continually lied about the contents of papers – trusting that his gullible followers wouldn't check.
But the alt media loved this guy and this allowed him to grift even more money from vulnerable and injudicious people. He set up a medical type advice service – where for a mere $1000 an hour you can chat to him over Skype – and he will tell you how to rid your body of exosomes – if that's sounds like utter made up shit that can't be done that's because it is. I actually emailed him and said I had covid- should I go to the hospital? He advised no – pay him $1000 and in just three weeks he would have an hour's Skype with me to sort it all out. This type of advice – as well as being greedy – is at best irresponsible and at worst wilfully dangerous.But, but….do viruses exist at all?
One of the most surprising notions to emerge at the start of the pandemic was the idea that perhaps viruses (you know those things that have been ubiquitous in our lives, those things you have all had at one time in your life) didn't actually exist. Now this was sold by its proponents as deep research flying in the face of established mainstream dogma. In retrospect I am not sure that this is accurate.
The mind does strange things in times of stress. I'm not saying it's definitely this – but it might well be this:
A virus happened, the future was uncertain and people were anxious. Would this affect their lives? Would they get ill? Would people they knew die? Would they be forced to have medicine that they didn't want? Would the supermarkets close so we couldn't get food? Would their jobs be at risk? All of this was a possibility and the human mind does not deal with uncertainty very well.
So subconscious's everywhere went into a frenzy of mental gymnastics and some people convinced themselves that viruses don't exist – because some bloke on the internet said so. Why? Well if viruses don't exist then Sars Cov 2 doesn't exist and therefore there is no uncertainty and nothing to be worried about – you can just get on with your life. This is called blinkering yourself and it is an attempt to avoid scary reality.
I'm not saying it's definitely that…but it's probably that.
You see the idea was floated that viruses and germ theory itself was flawed. Had someone noticed a flaw in the over 150 years of experiments showing how viruses and germs work? No. Had someone repeated the rabies experiments and noticed something amiss? No. Had someone demonstrated that the normal accepted laws of virology or germs had been shown not to work on all occasions? No. What happened is that someone put a quote on the internet. Sorry if that sounds glib and dismissive but that's what happened.
You see Louis Pasteur was the founder of what is known as germ theory, his experiments proving how viruses work and leading to the invention of vaccines, antibiotics, a greater understanding of disease and the ways that hygiene and medicine can treat or prevent the onset of many diseases. He pioneered the understanding of how killing germs can avert disease which led to greater understanding of sanitation, public health and much of modern medicine.
In opposition to this was the idea put about by Claude Bernard later developed by Antoine Bechamp called terrain theory. This posited that the body or terrain was everything. The idea states that germs or microbes are insignificant or nonexistent and that illness is caused by the body itself. The idea being that a healthy body could repel all disease regardless of what it was exposed to.
So – a quote popped up on the internet apparently from an obscure French text – the quote was apparently from Pasteur, taken on his deathbed. The dynamite passage was – " Bechamp was right, the pathogen is nothing, the terrain is everything." Sometimes this quote is written as "Bernard was right, the pathogen is nothing, the terrain is everything." Sometimes "Pathogen" is replaced with "Microbe".
Why the discrepancy over who was mentioned and what exactly they said? Well that's because the quote is completely fabricated – it's made up. It doesn't appear in the book that it is claimed to be from or anywhere other than the internet. The quote isn't real.
Furthermore – who gives a shit what Pasteur said – that's not how things work is it? If Karl Benz had said on his deathbed – "You know cars don't exist" would that mean your family run-around would suddenly vanish? Of course not.
Now – if you have a healthy body, keep in shape and maintain your "terrain" is this going to be beneficial? Of course – but that's not how it works. The healthiest person is not impervious to certain diseases and pathogens. No one is invincible – I don't give a shit if you are Geoff Capes or what – the plague will fuck you up.
And that's it. That's all the evidence that some people needed to abandon 150 years of known medical fact – a single made up quote.
That really isn't how things work – you need to disprove or show the inadequacies the current established understanding first – which is difficult because it's based on verifiable repeatable known's – and then explain why your system is a better explanation and then prove this with verifiable repeatable demonstrations of this.But, but… it isn't even a HCID
As the pandemic spread the UK government announced Sars Cov 2 was to be taken off the HCID list. A HCID is a High Consequence Infectious Disease. This was seen by elements of the alt media as a smoking gun. Some even tried an ill advised attempt to prosecute the UK government based on the fact that Sars Cov 2 was no longer a HCID. The spurious lawsuit was based on the fact that this had been done in secret – despite the fact that it was published on the government's website and therefore not secret at all.
So why did the alt media think this was significant? Were they just clutching at straws – well yes basically. The alt media for some reason (despite never having heard the phrase HCID before) were convinced that if not a HCID then it was nothing to worry about – as if there are only two categories of disease in this world – high consequence and of absolutely no consequence at all.
Here is the list of HCIDs – if you can think of a disease not listed here that you definitely wouldn't want because it could kill you, congratulations you have debunked this notion.
I'll help you out, Typhoid, typhus or HIV are not HCID's – fancy any of those? Think because they aren't on this list that they are not problematic for their sufferers – particularly if left untreated.
So why isn't Sars Cov 2 considered a HCID? Well if we look at the definition of a HCID we can see that on two counts Sars Cov 2 does not meet the requirements to be included. You see Sars Cov 2 has a fatality rate of about 2% - so not a high death rate when compared to Ebola which is a HCID and has a death rate of 50%. Also we have a test for Sars Cov 2 – in fact we have several – so it isn't difficult to detect. Hence it can't be a HCID. It's really that simple and not significant at all.
The best way to explain what this actually means is to use a football analogy. Imagine your body is a Sunday league football team. Well next week you are plying Ebola – they will definitely beat you 50 nil. Hard times. But this week you are playing covid. Covid will probably beat you 2 nil. So the defeat will be less crushing but it still looks likely that you will lose. For comparison Flu is a team that you expect to beat 3 nil.
Think of Sars Cov 2 as a second flight team – they still have the ability to beat your amateur side given the chance.But, but…they are faking the Death certificates
Professor Chris Whitty the government adviser announced in April 2020 that all deaths that were believed to be Sars Cov 2 related would be recorded as such – even if they didn't have a test. The alt media jumped on this as proof beyond all doubt that the UK government were massaging the figures – the theory was that they were artificially inflating the numbers so that the populous would be scared into lockdown. You see the alt media has been convinced that the lockdown was the main point – ignoring the fact that the UK only had three weeks of serious lockdown before everyone just started ignoring it (see the Herd Immunity article).
It transpired that their fears about the deaths figures were also unfounded – not only that but the alt media grabbed the completely wrong end of the stick and began beating wildly about the bush with it.
This was a fundamental misunderstanding about how deaths are recorded and why tracking suspected deaths would be a good idea.
There are two running metrics for recording the deaths from Sars Cov 2 – an IO71 and an IO72. See below:
What does this mean? It means that the criteria to be included in the daily death toll, the one shown on the news are quite strict. In order to be an IO71 you have to die in a hospital or care home with a positive test. This is the figure that the government was announcing on the news. Final say goes to the Dr observing the death.But, but… they died with it not of it
But what about the co- morbidities? Isn't that people dying with it not from it? Again this shows a lack of understanding about how Sars Cov 2 works. It suppresses your immune system so you have no natural defence. If you have something like diabetes, which your immune system was coping with – take that immune system away and suddenly the condition you were living with could become deadly. So most people will actually die from a co morbidity – one that otherwise would not have been a threat. If you have no co morbidities but Sars Cov 2 develops into Covid 19 then your immune system starts attacking itself. This usually results in your lungs filling with a fluid containing blood clots and organ failure. So all this "with" or "from" stuff just shows a lack of understanding of the facts.
An IO72 is suspected Sars Cov 2 but with no proof. This is vital because it allows for the collection of data about how the virus spreads, who it affects etc. But without a positive test they will be added to the IO72 list.
So this raises the question – if the government are trying to scare us why would they use the lowest possible number of deaths? If they wanted to frighten us for some reason they would include all the suspected deaths too.
For example – in India the current death toll is about half a million from Sars Cov2 – a tragedy. However if you look at the excess deaths for the year they stand at around four million. So this means that Four million people died in India more than they expected to die in 2020. Most of these died in rural areas. Anecdotal evidence points to respiratory distress – so probably this pandemic that's all the rage. However, because these people never received a test they will never be added to the figures. The current world figure for deaths by Sars Cov 2 is four million. Records from India suggest that total should at least double.
The best indicator – that takes into account all the problems caused by the pandemic and the reaction to the pandemic is to use Excess deaths as a measure. India had about four million excess deaths in 2020. The USA had about 300000 excess deaths and the UK had about 90000. That's how many people more died that year than was to be expected.
But, but…Kary Mullis said
There are two quotes being peddled that apparently show that the inventor of the PCR test – Kary Mullis felt that they were not suitable for indicating the presence of a virus. Unfortunately neither of the quotes actually say this. In fact both of the real quotes used to say that the PCR cannot detect viruses actually say the opposite.
There was a different iteration of the first quote but it wasn't real. Yet again certain people within the sphere of the alt media simply lied and fabricated a quote – "You cannot use this test to prove infectious ideology or to diagnose an infectious disease" Who made this quote up? Well those bastions of honesty Thomas Cowan and Andrew Kaufman.
The real quote probably isn't even from Mullis either – it's from an article written by John Lauritsen about HIV.
The quote is "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron." PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves."
So it's saying that the PCR test can detect the presence of a virus – but not immediately tell you how much virus is present or the state of its progression. But you will note that it definitely says that it can detect the virus contrary to the lies being spread.
The second quote is also taken wildly out of context. It is often spread as this: "With PCR if you can do it well you can find almost anything in anybody." Yet again this is a fabrication – why all these lies from the truth movement?
The real quote is this: "someone with HIV generally is going to have almost anything that you can test for".
"If you have it, there's a good chance you've also got a lot of other ones," Mullis said, so "to test for that one and say that has any special meaning is what I think is the problem, not that PCR has been misused."
He said: "If they could find this virus in you at all, with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody, it starts making you believe in the Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else."
The context is vital. You see Mullis agreed with Peter Duesberg of the House of Numbers film fame. They felt that AIDs was not connected to HIV and that only homosexuals could catch it. Duesberg also believed that AIDs was a "consequence of the (gay) lifestyle" punishment if you will for sinful behaviour. Mullis wrote the foreword in Duesbergs book in which this theory was promoted. AIDs denialism seems to be a thing amongst certain downplayers of the Covid crisis who spread these misconceptions in order to draw an audience, get clicks and make money.
Mullis also made no money for his invention of the PCR test – the literally billions it made were swallowed up by the company he worked for when he invented the device. Mullis saw very little financial compensation for his efforts.
So you can imagine his frustration when his device (stolen from him) was being used to diagnose HIV – which he didn't think was a significant disease – certainly not the cause of AIDs.
The first problem is that he and Duesberg were flat out wrong – HIV is the cause of AIDs. So when he made the second quote he was trying to explain how HIV is found uniformly in AIDs patients when he believes that they are not connected. Hence he is speaking figuratively – oh you can find anything.
Now this obviously isn't true – it's a figure of speech. If it were true then no one would ever be found innocent by DNA – they would keep dialling it up until they found your DNA at the scene of the crime. But this isn't what happens – if you seriously think you can find anything just by dialling up the number of amplifications then do it – find Dodo DNA in a house brick – just keep dialling until you hit it.
Put simply – something needs to be there in the first place in order for you to amplify it.
One question that those who spread this misunderstanding can't explain is why – if the PCR test is not suitable for detecting viruses – then why oh why did Kary Mullis specifically state in the patent for the device that this was exactly what they were designed to do? Furthermore – what the hell do you think the PCR is used for if not this?
Again though – lets imagine that Mullis did say that this device is useless – who the hell cares? He also said that he regularly chatted to a man sized glow in the dark raccoon from outer space that spoke perfect English.
PCR has been used in a vast amount of areas for the last 35 years. Strangely people never had a doubt about its uses when it was detecting HIV or Chlamydia, or being used to match DNA for organ transplants or even when used to determine the parentage of children. Christ someone is going to have to call Maury Povich and explain that all those people who were determined to be the father, well they aren't.But, but… its only looking for genetic material
Some say - oh but it's not looking for a virus - it's looking for genetic material - this is either disingenuous or a genuine misunderstanding of what they are saying. This use of the phrase genetic material implies that it's looking for any old junk. Genetic material refers to DNA or RNA. Viruses are RNA and like all DNA or RNA they have a unique genetic code. It's the code that is the indicator of the virus. So when people say - oh it's just genetic material, that's as silly as saying - "was there any evidence that this girl was raped?" - "No, none at all...other than another person's DNA in her vagina - is that any good as evidence?"But, but…asymptomatic spread is a myth
For some unknown reason the alternative media suddenly decided that they had never heard of the concept of asymptomatic spread or even that such a thing was completely new. They appear to have forgotten or not heard of Typhoid Mary or Mary Mallon– the unfortunate woman who asymptomatically spread typhoid to approximately fifty people during her work as a cook in the early 1900's. HIV is also mostly spread asymptomatically – often without even the knowledge of the infected until symptoms present themselves much later. Chlamydia, Tuberculosis, Cholera and various other diseases can be spread asymptomatically. A third of flu cases are spread asymptomatically. Just think about it sensibly for a second – do you always know the source of your illnesses? Particularly winter bugs? In fact asymptomatic spread is what allows certain diseases to transmit freely.
In June 2020 Maria Van Kerkhove, who works for the World Health Organisation as a technical lead stated that asymptomatic transmission was "very rare" and people jumped at this seeming smoking gun demolishing the fear and propaganda. Shortly after making these statements Maria Van Kerkhove said that people had misunderstood her and that she had been talking about the difference between asymptomatic and presymptomatic. Presymptomatic is a person who was not ill at the beginning but later became ill. In this context she meant asymptomatic as – people who never show symptoms. Add to this that she was talking about a small subset of data and the confusion ran rife. She was referring to a small study that did show that the people studied who were asymptomatic didn't seem to spread the virus as much. However this is not indicative of worldwide trends. She later clarified that her statement was wrongly interpreted. Basically this is what happens when you have scientists talking about very specific things to a group of journalists looking for a headline. The truth gets lost in the middle.
"I was responding to a question at the press conference. I wasn't stating a policy of WHO or anything like that. I was just trying to articulate what we know," she said on a live Q&A streamed across multiple social media platforms. "And in that, I used the phrase 'very rare,' and I think that that's misunderstanding to state that asymptomatic transmission globally is very rare. I was referring to a small subset of studies."
Some people cite a study taken directly from Wuhan – the origin point of Sars Cov 2 - which apparently tested 10 million people are discovered not one case of asymptomatic spread. Except that's not what the study said at all. The study said that asymptomatic spread is definitely real but that symptomatic people spread the virus more easily – which again is common sense.
Others will cite a study where an asymptomatic carrier was introduced to about 600 people and low and behold none of them caught it from this guy. Surely that proves that asymptomatic spread isn't possible? No. What it shows is that the single guy who had Sars Cov 2 didn't have enough viral load to spread it – that's all.But, but…Masks don't help in fact they are dangerous
In 2020, when masks were advised to help reduce the transmission of Sars Cov 2 again the alt media saw a nefarious plot. Many within the scene started worrying that masks could actually kill the wearer by depriving them of precious oxygen. If a thin layer of cloth can render a person unconscious – why have I been wasting good money on chloroform? The idea that masks could actually cause hypoxia – low levels of oxygen in your blood became very popular. Personally I racked my brains looking for examples of Highwaymen lying dead at the side of the road, tales of ninjas dropping dead en masse from trees halfway through their missions or the regular bloodbaths that occur in nail bars when the staff all suffocate – then I recalled that this simply wasn't a thing.
So where did this anti mask thing start? Well colour me surprised but it began in March 2020 and came, indirectly from the UK government. in March 2020 - before the first lockdown started - PR firm Topham Guerin was given a no bid £3million contract - paid for by the tax payer - to provide an information campaign for the UK public. What was the purpose of the campaign? They encouraged people to not wear masks.
The campaign was called "Enjoy Summer Safely" it was tied into the "eat out to help out" campaign and it spread the rumours - communicated by the government that masks were not required, were ineffective and could even cause the spreading about masks and trapping the disease and all that utter rubbish. This was then expanded to include nonsense about masks causing hypoxia etc.
Why – well because the government were trying to achieve herd immunity – which they believed would be quicker and cheaper than dealing with the actual problems faced by Sars Cov 2. (See my herd immunity article)
The argument resented by the alt media was based around two contradictory ideas – one that the masks don't stop the virus and two that the masks keep the virus in your mask giving you a massive dose – oh and they also suffocate you.
Ok – the first one has an element of truth – the virus particle is smaller than the gaps in the fabric of the masks – case closed then? No. You see the virus doesn't travel on its own – it requires a water droplet/ spit particle to attach itself to in order to spread. These water droplets are bigger than the gaps in the mask. Its common sense really – let's have a spitting contest. We both stand in front of one another and have to spit in each other's face. But when it's your turn to spit at me – you have to wear a mask covering your mouth and nose. Who do you think will emerge covered in phlegm?
If the virus is held inside the mask – it has come from you, it's already inside you. You aren't wallowing in a pool of the stuff. Also you really should only use a mask once before washing it.
But what about the writing on the side of the box – even that says that masks are not effective in stopping you from getting Sars Cov 2. Case closed surely?
This is because the mask is to prevent the wearer unknowingly infecting others. It isn't to protect the wearer – it's a measure designed to prevent the spread of the disease. It's kind of like wearing a seatbelt in the seat behind the passenger in a car. The chances of you getting hurt are lower than the chances of you crushing the front seat passenger to death – hence you wear a seatbelt. Masks are simply one tool of prevention – are they an impenetrable barrier? No. But to all those that say – why bother with masks and social distancing and washing your hands – why bother with a speed limit – we already have seatbelts and crumple zones?
Some people cite the almost mythical Danish Study – which apparently showed that wearing masks was pointless – except it didn't say anything of the sort. The authors of the study actually tried to address this misinformation saying categorically that the paper did not say that masks were useless. The paper wasn't even testing the protective or preventative qualities of masks – and yet it concluded that masks should be worn as part of a wider range of preventative methods. The study did acknowledge that masks do not offer much, if any protection to the user and that masks alone would not be effective – but we know this. No one has ever tried to argue that point. Masks are simply one type of preventative method.
Some even argue that no study ever has shown that masks work in any way at slowing the spread of disease – this is of course complete bollocks that relies on some rather slippery data mining and the use of quotes taken out of context – who would have thought.
Any way here is a recent Meta study named The Impact of Community Masking on COVID-19: A Cluster-Randomized Trial in Bangladesh. Can you believe that it showed without a doubt that Masks help the spread of a virus spread by people's breath.
But, but …Michael Yeadon said they give out 90% false positives.He also said this:
And also these rather unfortunate statements:
Michael Yeadon is erroneously touted as the ex vice President of Pfizer – because apparently being connected to big pharma is only bad if they disagree with your premise – he wasn't though – he was a specialist in allergies that sold his department for a huge profit. He has never worked with viruses and admits to have never done a PCR test. For some reason people listen to this man's "opinion".
So he claimed that the PCR test give out 90% false positives. This ridiculous assertion from a man who has no knowledge of what he speaks about can be disproven with simple common sense. If the tests give 90% false positives then we would see the same amount of infection everywhere. Just the fact that places have zero cases shows that this is made up. That would be impossible if nine out of ten come back positive. Its absolute bullshit.
So how did he get this figure? Well by lying basically. He noted that the ONS said that 1% of the population was infected with covid. But he noticed that at testing centres more than 1% were coming back positive. As this was higher than the national average he deduced that 90% were false positives. Now if you think that sounds like total bollocks you are correct.
Of course here will be cases where people – potentially feeling ill – will go to be tested and more than 1% will be positive – because you are dealing with a sample rather than the total. He's not stupid so he must realise that he is lying. He currently runs PCR claims with Patrick Fagan of the Mi6 sponsored Mind control programme Cambridge Analytica – again people are ignoring this because he is telling them exactly what they want to hear. The only problem is he has been proven wrong on every occasion.But, but…they use too many cycles in the UK?
Various members of the alt media shared a picture, taken from an NHS document that seems to imply that the UK PCR tests use 45 cycles – a high number - to amplify the RNA from the virus. This trope ties in with the previous misconception that you can find anything with the PCR test if you dial it high enough. The document was from May 2020 and it is from NHS and PHE explaining the protocols for testing should any private labs do testing for them.
The picture is on page 16 and is shown below.
This was not the point at which the test was determined to be positive – this was the point where they shut the machine off. It came down to a misreading of the document.
Luckily for us this sort of thing is monitored. The ONS collects data from the PCR tests used in the UK and they determined the mean average ct count was 25.5.
Again though this shows a lack of understanding about quite a specialist subject and it's a mystery as to why all of a sudden everyone decided they were experts on the subject and could spot flaws.
This excellent article explains the details and nuances of PCR testing far better than I ever could.
But, but…what about the FOIA requests to show the isolated virus
So – some of you may have seen the FOIA request asking various places to hand over documents pertaining to the isolation of SARS COV 2. The response is being peddled as proof that the virus has never been properly identified. *Sighs extremely deeply*
This FOIA request has gone to PHE in the UK, the FDA in the USA and the National Research Council in Canada - now here's the thing - a FOIA request is for information or data that has been previously hidden or withheld. The genome and isolated SARS COV 2 virus is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN - so a FOIA request is pointless - you may as well petition your local Burger King.
As shocked as some of you may be – this request was also not quite as honest as it seemed at first.
The request asks to see the isolated virus. But they used the different usages of the word isolated to trick people into thinking that such a request could not be fulfilled as the virus didn't exist. But their request couldn't be fulfilled – as they requested – because it was impossible.
They used the common usage of the term isolated – meaning alone – completely alone. Not the scientific usage of the term – which means to culture the virus to prove its existence. As they state in the request, "in the every-day sense of the word".
Now here's the disingenuous trick. You can't photo a virus on its own it needs a host to exist. Viruses are inert without a host cell. They need a host cell to exist – but that wouldn't be isolated in the common usage. So it's a silly word game.
Isolation is done by extracting the virus from a patient, culturing the virus on other cells before spinning it down to reveal the genome. What they are asking for is impossible. It's like saying you want a picture of a cloud with no oxygen or sky surrounding it just on its own or that they want to hear music but it can't come from a person, instrument, speaker or device – just out of thin air. Crafty fucks
This is the sort of disingenuous trick that only serves to detract from serious investigation and tars everyone as those who don't check detail. So one wonders why they did it.
Here is an explanation of the process of isolating
Here is the letter that is being sent around
From the letter that is circulating:
"All records in the possession, custody or control of Public Health England describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells)"
This - as the authors of the letter know - is how you isolate a new virus (or any virus) by culturing it on cells to see the reaction before filtering it and isolating the virus. They are implying that by mixing it up with monkey kidneys you get a sort of broth from which who knows might emerge. But that's extremely disingenuous too. They know that monkey kidney tissue is often used to culture viruses. This doesn't matter because they know the genome of the kidney – so when they take that out they know what is left is the RNA of the virus. It's the same as extracting DNA from another person's body, or from animal – they don't mix up the two.
We know they know the distinction in the language they use because the next sentence (which totally contradicts the previous sentence) is:
"Please note that I am using "isolation" in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where "isolation of SARS-COV-2" refers *instead* to:
- The culturing of something, or
- the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or • the sequencing of something."
Crafty sods. They don't want the cultured virus - they want the "every-day sense of the word", the cloud without oxygen surrounding it, the music out of thin air. Why would they do this? This hasn't happened by mistake they have taken time and effort to craft a deceitful request and then portray it as something that it isn't. Just to clarify – their argument is that if you can't produce music without a speaker or device – then Black Sabbath never existed – it really does boil down to that.
Now the PHE did actually send a detailed report on how to isolate the virus (I'll bet none of the recipients have actually read) specifically in the section titled: "Isolation of infectious virus from respiratory samples" detailing them isolating the virus – specifically to see how infectious different samples are. It also has links in the references to other times that the virus was isolated.
Here is the paper that PHE sent as response – you can see the section "isolation of infectious virus from respiratory samples" in it.
But this won't be enough for some as they want the virus in nothing - the cloud but not surrounded by oxygen, the music from nothing.
Well this isn't possible but what we do have is a electron microscope picture of the virus isolate. This is when the virus has been identified directly from a patient (in this case in lung fluid) and is identified without the need to culture the virus on other cells. So such a picture does exist. Such a sample is called an isolate.
If you need to lie and trick people in such a sleazy way your evidence obviously isn't that strong.
So to clarify - a FOIA request would get you nowhere with public domain documents and what they are asking for isn't to determine if the virus has been identified or not - it's a crappy word trick.
Also see the response from the DHCS that for some reason - who knows why - people have chosen not to share.
But, but…it's just the flu
People saying it's just the flu - again this is really simple - no it isn't – would that it were so. Sars Cov 2 has a death rate about ten times that of the flu and a contagion rate about 20 times. Simply by looking at the numbers we can see this is at best wishful thinking and at worst total refusal to accept the facts. Flu on average kills about 15000 a year in the UK. In 2020 by March there had been just shy of 8000 flu deaths recorded by the PHE in the UK. Flu season also ends in March which is when people started dying from covid. Sars Cov 2 killed 140000 in 2020 - so if they simply swapped the flu over - where in the hell did all the extra deaths come from. Excess deaths were 90000 by the end of 2020. Some say - but the symptoms the symptoms will nobody think of the symptoms. Yes some symptoms are similar SOME - because it's a respiratory disease. But never ever has flu caused the blood clot filled pneumonic fluid, never has flu caused the shattered glass damage to the lungs, never has flu caused such damage to organs or the immune system and never has flu caused the neurological problems we can see associated with Sars Cov 2. Yes they both have symptoms of a cough and a high temperature but to say they are the same is like swearing blind that an omelette is a cake because both contain eggs. Ironically at the beginning of the pandemic the covid denial crowd used the flu figures to suggest Sars Cov 2 was nothing to be worried about -later they pretended they hadn't done this.
But, but it has a 99.9% survival rate – even the CDC said soPut simply that's not true and no they didn't. This screenshot has been shared quite a lot:
It infers that the CDC themselves made this prediction even implying that this is a screenshot from the CDC's own website. Spoilers it's not real.
So did the CDC make this statement? No they didn't. Would you believe the figures used have been taken out of context. Here is the paper in which similar figures appear:
This is a working paper making guesses and estimates about scenarios playing out in a number of hypothetical ways – basically it's like a well we think if this happens then hopefully this happens paper. So the figures presented, what are they? – It was an estimate of potential IFR in very specific circumstances. Simply put IFR is kind of saying your chances of catching it and dying whereas CFR case fatality rate is how likely you are to die if you definitely already have it. The CDC has never released a survival rate. The survival rate differs dependent on a number of factors. Mainly it is how much resources are available to treat people – which is exacerbated by high levels of infection. The galling thing is that this is completely controllable (see the herd immunity article). So this 99.9% is the hope that in certain circumstances they might be able to get the IFR down to this rate. Spoilers – they didn't.
And though a paper was released from Stockholm University in July 2020 this was also a prediction. Here is the screenshot that is circulating:
Unfortunately Sweden did particularly badly, probably because they also seemed to pursue herd immunity. These ideas, particularly the fake CDC screenshot were spread by the political group the Irish Freedom Party. At the time that they spread these lies the CFR in Ireland was 6%. At the same time – June 2020 the US also had a case fatality rate of 6%, Sweden was at about 12%, the UK was above 14% and France was approaching 20%.
See below graphs indicating the number of deaths in each country per million citizens.
But, But… the ONS said the survival rate was 99.9%Again – no they didn't. But what about this graph I have seen on the internet?
Can you believe that this wasn't taken from the ONS – it was fabricated with data taken from the ONS. Well surely that's as good? No. You see what they have done here is to plot the number of deaths against the entire population of that age range – to make the death rate seem artificially low. I ask again – why all these lies in the truth movement?
The message is misleading. The average for the entire country cannot be used to calculate an individual's chance of dying from the virus.
The ONS, like the CDC, does not publish a survival rate – because it doesn't work like that. What they do is track the percentage of deaths against the number of cases. This has fluctuated due to all sorts of factors – principally that it was far more difficult to treat at the beginning of the pandemic and that deaths increase when hospitals are stretched for resources – common sense really.
Now - is the virus more likely to affect older people and those with underlying health problems? Yes – but this somewhat misses the point. The infection leads to others being infected and there is also the possibility of organ or neurological damage from long Covid. Recovered means you didn't die – it doesn't mean you are totally fine. The UK has seen 9000 children hospitalised with Sars Cov 2 and numerous examples of children spreading the disease to adults who have sadly died. In the USA more children have died from Sars Cov 2 than normally die from the flu. In Utah this year there have been 800 children hospitalised – 100 of them suffered multisystem inflammatory syndrome – which affects the organs and heart.
But, but….the death rate for 2020 is the same as 2003.
This isn't how you measure death - you need to look at how many people were expected to die. The death rate should drop progressively as time passes. Medicine and living standards improve and as they do life expectancy increases. In the 60s the average age of death in the USA was 69 it is now 79. In the UK in 1960 it was 71 now it is 81. So by looking at a year like 2003 and seeing that we have a similar death rate doesn't mean this year wasn't bad - quite the opposite. It means we have gone backwards 20 years in 12 months. That death rate in 2003 was the expected death rate - the death rate in 2020 was much higher than expected.
But, but….the ASMR is the same as 2008
Age standardised mortality rate is a way to take into account the changing demographics of a country, specifically the ages of the population. As life expectancy improves then you get an older population. However a population with more elderly than young people would expect to see more deaths – through old age and natural causes. Therefore sometimes ASMR is used to make comparisons.
You may have seen the table below showing that before 2008 the ASMR was higher than 2020 – in fact there are only 13 years that 2020 was higher than. Case closed surely now eh?
No. Sorry. You may notice another trend in the graph. Generally the graph is sloping down to the right. What this shows is that as time passes and medicine and hygiene improve the average life expectancy increases. So similarly to the death rate compared to 2003, this actually shows that we have destroyed years of progress in a few months.But, but … there was no excess death this year – or but,but…not that many died
This is just a flat our lie. Excess deaths at the end of 2020 were over 90000 in the UK and 300000 in the USA. Excess deaths is how many people more than expected died. In England and Wales 608,002 people died. As we can see in the graph below that's the highest number of dead since the First World War.
And in the USA
In fact we can look at the excess deaths for various countries and we can see that the majority recorded excess deaths for 2020. The below figures are actually 2020 and up to September 2021. The countries where the excess deaths listed are higher than the number of covid deaths, probably indicates unreported or untested Covid deaths. Again this puts paid to the theory that the deaths were being exaggerated or artificially inflated. The data came from the statistics site Euromomo.
Death was never - and has never been the main problem with Sars Cov 2 - it's the contagion. For every bed taken up by a Sars Cov 2 patients there are two beds used as an exclusion zone that can't be used. We only have a finite amount of beds. The more Sars Cov 2 patients the more beds need to be used as part of a widening exclusion zone. Very soon we run out of beds and then no one can be treated for anything.
Anyway – here are the excess deaths for Europe
And here are the excess deaths for the UK
But, but…the lockdown killed more than Covid.Now nobody likes lockdown – no one. But when talking about a disease that spreads via person to person contact, limiting that contact is a bit of a no brainer. It has been shown in numerous cases that lockdowns – if done correctly – can reduce transmission.
Are they much fun? Absolutely not no. Do they cause all sorts of other problems? Yes absolutely. The problem was that in the UK we resisted a lockdown for four weeks, never closed the airports to incoming passengers, had limited testing and limited PPE. This combined with the fact that after three weeks the governments own spokesman Dominic Cummings knackered everything by undermining government policy in public. Please read the herd immunity article for a broader explanation.
But one of the notions put around as fact – in order to leverage bad feeling against the idea of lockdowns as a measure, was the idea that they had caused a spike in the suicide of lonely, isolated and scared people. Some estimates were as high as a 600% increase. Like so many things spread recently this turned out not to be true.
Suicides actually fell during lockdown - contrary to what alt media said. The tragedy is that yes mental health problems do exist, yes people are isolated and lonely and yes a lockdown will exacerbate these problems. But here's the thing – those problems existed years ago and will always exist and until the lockdown most didn't give a shit. It's almost as if people are using others suffering as leverage for their own complaints. It's almost as if you are using the plight of others so your whinging about minor inconveniences doesn't seem quite so self-centred. If that's not you – prove me wrong – continue to look out for your fellow man. If you are angry – well perhaps this just hit a nerve?
The idea that the lockdown killed more than the virus came from the UK HM Treasury – specifically via the think tank Economic Insight. Why? Well the treasury didn't want the economy to slow down so they made this statement. It's not backed by facts or evidence it was just manipulative propaganda based on money. Similar notions were pushed by the Great Barrington Declaration – which came from the think tank AEIR – essentially financed by the fossil fuel industry. Oil went negative for the first time ever in early 2020 due to the lack of international and domestic travel – it doesn't take a genius to understand why the oil industry might push the idea that not travelling is actually extremely harmful – it's isn't due to concerns about the public health. The first anti lockdown protests were organised by the Heritage Foundation – again the fossil fuel industry. The idea to film the "empty hospitals" was also put about by members of the CNP – guess which fossil based industry they are keen on? Is this starting to make sense yet?
The promotion of Drs taken up by the alt media as bastions of the truth – such as Sunetra Gupta, Karol Sikora, Carl Heneghen, Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya and Michael Yeadon are actually being pushed by the UK governments Nudge Unit – the Mind control team via the think tank Surgrue Communications.
Gupta herself is actually financed by donors to the UK Government:
"On 9 April 2021, Open Democracy reported that Oxford University professor Sunetra Gupta, a critic of public health measures to curb covid-19 and a proponent of "natural herd immunity," had "received almost £90,000 from the Georg and Emily von Opel Foundation." The foundation was named after its founder, Georg von Opel who is the great-grandson of Adam Opel, founder of the German car manufacturer. Georg von Opel is a Conservative party donor with a net worth of $2 billion. "Gupta's arguments against lockdowns—and in favour of 'herd immunity,'" the report further noted, "have found favour…in the British government."
What can we conclude from this?
- We have what is called a false premise fallacy. This means that many of the assumptions of the alt media and their conclusions are based on erroneous ideas. If the initial premise is incorrect – the conclusions and theories drawn from this are also incorrect. What you should do is alter your position as new information comes to light. The alt media has not changed its position since February 2020.
Sars Cov 2 has become to some in the alt media as Donald Trump became to CNN. They basically said that he embodied everything that they hated but he was the only thing that kept them relevant. When Trump went CNNs ratings plummeted. Perhaps this explains why some have clung to these easily debunked notions for so long?
Regardless of the reasons – these tropes aren't true – what is the point of a truth movement if you just pick and choose what to believe because it supports your preconceived narrative?
Furthermore these misconceptions have allowed the alt media to play directly into the governments hands. Unbeknownst to them they are ctually part of the government's plan to avoid scrutiny and blame. Put extremely simply you can't hold the government to account for allowing the deaths of 150000 people from a virus if a large amount of the populous believes that the virus isn't serious or doesn't exist. The alt media have been duped into being pawns in a disinformation campaign and the irony is that ultimately they will probably be blamed for the consequences. People will forget the politicians and just focus on the conspiracy theorists that told people not to take preventative measures and to pretend the virus isn't real.
In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.