Covid1984
Update
1st
February 2021
In
early 2020 the worlds governments told their citizens that there was
a new virus at large [Coronavirus
SARS – CoV – 2]
and
that this virus
caused a new flu like illness [Covid19]
Further,
they told us that they had a way of detecting that this new virus was
infecting a person, using an old test called a Polymerase Chain
Reaction test [PCR]
Also
that there were lots of people in all our populations, who show no
symptoms and are not ill, but have tested positive for Covid19 using
the PCR test. Further, that such people can infect other healthy
people who are not ill with the new virus. They labelled such
infected, but not ill, folk as: Asymptomatic
Carriers
Finally,
they told us that all this means that there was now a new Pandemic
and that it was rapidly spreading around the planet and that we
should all be scared stiff
So
these in red above are 5 key foundational
assumptions
for
their Covid19 narrative.
I
call them foundational because, if any one of these assumptions fails
then,
the
whole Covid19 narrative fails
This
short paper will examine the evidence for these foundational
assumptions
in turn:
1
Coronavirus
SARS – CoV – 2
What
is the evidence for the existence of the new virus?
Succinctly:
there
isn’t any at all!
First
see here:
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/08/the-smoking-gun-where-is-the-coronavirus-the-cdc-says-it-isnt-available/
“Buried
deep in the document, on page 39 [actually
page 42],
in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this:
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently
available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the
2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro
transcribed full length RNA…” The key phrase there is: “Since
no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently
available… Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to
say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase
means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is
unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.
A
further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO
ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE”
So
the US Centre for Disease Control admits that there is no
isolated virus!
Second,
during the “pandemic” there have been numerous Freedom of
Information Requests to government and health authorities all over
the world. Not one of these bodies has ever provided a document that
proves that the virus has ever been isolated, not one. See this:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
“FOIs
reveal that health/science institutions around the world have no
record of SARS-COV-2 isolation/purification, anywhere, ever”
Third,
more FOI info here:
https://peopleforjusticecanada.com/2021/01/05/canadian-public-health-officials-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-performed-anywhere-ever/
What
is isolation?
http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3613)
"A
virus isolate is a virus isolated from an infected host. The process
is called "isolation," which separates viruses from the
hosts." It
means that for microbiologists and virologists, taking a swab sample,
which separates virus from the host, is considered as "virus
isolation."
This
interpretation does not reflect the correct meaning and understanding
of the subject of isolation.
But, they imply and promote the true meaning of the process of
isolation, i.e., to obtain something by extraction, purification, and
identification, reflected by well-known pretty pictures of the
DNA/RNA, proteins, and viruses such as a spherical body with spikes
(aka coronavirus). The virologists' version of the definition is
incorrect and causing the problem. Wherever one looks for the virus,
one always finds a suffix with it, e.g., "virus isolate,"
"virus culture," "virus lysate," etc., (which are
soups, mixtures or gunks), never "virus" alone; however, it
is presented and promoted as pure "virus."
So
nobody
has any empirical evidence anywhere
that the virus actually exists!
In
fact, starting with the Chinese who first identified the virus DNA
sequence, they all rely entirely on “computer
models”
to enumerate the virus DNA strand, not
isolated virii
See
here:
https://www.sott.net/article/443103-Only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-SARS-CoV-2-virus
“First,
in the section titled "Whole Genome Sequencing," we find
that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome
from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples
using PCR probes This means they actually looked at 37 out of the
approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the
genome of the intact virus. They
then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program,
which filled in the rest of the base pairs.
To
me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here
is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a
unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and
a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer
and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this
computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never
actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its
genetic make up to compare their samples with the actual unicorn's
hair, hooves and horn”
Computer
models are NOT
empirical
evidence, particularly not unicorn computer models
Assumption
1 fails
2
Covid19
What
is the evidence that the new virus actually causes Covid19?
Hard
to credit given all the media hype and scaremongering but: there
isn’t any!
All
you need to do is think
for yourself to
see the truth because, if you do then, you will soon realise that:
If
there has been no
isolated virus
then, there can be no proof that it causes
any illness
QED
For
further confirmation then see here. Kochs Postulates have not
been satisfied:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/
“About
150 years ago, scientists painstakingly constructed a set of
principles that can prove whether a particular microbe is the cause
of a specific disease or is just a bystander. Those three principles
are known as the Koch postulates.
From
all the available information, the novel coronavirus doesn’t appear
to meet any of these tenets, never mind all three.
Like
most human endeavours, the Koch postulates were the product of
collaboration. First, Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts,
and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining
them until they were published in 1890. The resulting three
postulates are:
The
pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under
circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and
clinical course of the disease.
The
causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous
and nonpathogenic parasite.
After
being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture (or
cloned), it can induce the disease anew.
…..
There’s
an urgent need for scientists to step up and do this conclusively
with the novel coronavirus and COVID-19. But, strangely, the fire
hose of scientific papers on the virus-disease dyad is only a sickly
trickle on this tremendously important aspect of it.
A
very straightforward and inexpensive experiment is all that’s
needed to prove that the first postulate has been met.
…..
But
such an experiment has never been done, or if it has been done it
hasn’t been made public.
The
real kicker, though, is that the third postulate – isolating and
sequencing the virus and then showing it causes the disease in other
organisms – has not been fulfilled either”
No
proof has been publicised anywhere
that Coronavirus
SARS – CoV – 2 causes
Covid19
Do
you really think that they wouldn’t have shown us if they had any
proof?
Assumption
2 fails
3
PCR test
What
is the evidence that the PCR test can reliably identify that a person
is infected with the new virus?
Let’s
start with the obvious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction
“PCR
amplifies a specific region of a DNA strand (the DNA target)”
So
not a whole virus then. Not a good start….
But
let’s get straight to the heart of the matter. The PCR test was
invented by a US medical scientist called Kary Mullis who, in 1993,
won 997a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention. Here is what Mr
Mullis had to say about his test in July :
“PCR
is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something
out of something. It
doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you
ended up with [like
Covid19]
was going to hurt you or anything like that“
What
more is there to say? See the video of Kary Mullis saying that here:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/
This
article is worth reading more fully because it raises a whole load
more questions about the suitability of PCR for diagnosis, the number
of amplifications for instance.
More
on PCR [and also relevant to assumptions 1 and 2 above]:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/03/ten-fatal-errors-scientists-attack-paper-that-established-global-pcr-driven-lockdown/
“Titled
“External
peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-Cov-2 Reveals 10 Major
Flaws At The Molecular and Methodological Level: Consequences For
False-Positive Results,”
the
paper’s lead author is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the
molecular biology of gene expression. Several other esteemed names
are associated with the paper including Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP
of Pfizer and outspoken critic of much of the so-called science
beneath the WHO’s global lockdown, masking, and school shut-down
measures.
”
Finally,
this is now admitted by the WHO itself:
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
“Most
PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis”
As
an aid, so not a diagnostic test then….
In
summary using the PCR test to identify a “case” is close to
meaningless
It
is not empirical evidence of anything
Just
think of all those “positive” people who do
not get ill
but simply return to their normal life after their isolation period
ends
Assumption
3 fails
4
Asymptomatic Carriers
What
is the evidence for the existence of asymptomatic carriers?
What
does your common sense tell you?
Yes,
you are correct, there
isn’t any:
See
this
paper
in "Nature”.
Following
the lockdown, the city government of Wuhan conducted a city-wide
nucleic acid screening for SARS-CoV-2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
It
was carried out on an impressive scale:
There
were 10,652,513
eligible people aged
≥6 years in Wuhan (94.1% of the total population). The nucleic acid
screening was completed in 19 days (from May 14th, 2020 to Jun 1st,
2020), and tested
a total of 9,899,828
persons
from
the 10,652,513 eligible people (participation rate, 92.9%).
Of the 9899,828 participants, 9,865,404 had no previous diagnosis of
COVID-19, and 34,424 were recovered COVID-19 patients.
The
detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there
was no
evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced
close contacts.
There
were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential
communities.
Previous
studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with
SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious, and might subsequently become
symptomatic.
Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons
generally have low
quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding,
which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.
In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from
asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus.
All
close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative,
indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this
study were unlikely
to be infectious.”
This
from a study of 9
million
Chinese citizens
Assumption
4 fails
5
Pandemic
What
is the evidence that we have actually experienced a Pandemic in the
last 12 months?
Let’s
start with the WHO, the World Health Organisation.
WHO
changed it’s definition of Pandemic in 2009 in response to the
Swine Flu which they also wanted to label a Pandemic.
This
is what they used to say, but deleted in 2009:
“A
pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears …resulting in
epidemics worldwide with enormous
numbers of deaths
and illness……”
Here
is what they now say:
“A
disease epidemic occurs when there
are more cases
of that disease than normal.”
See
what they did there? They went from “enormous numbers of deaths”
to “more cases...than
normal”.
[I
hold a pdf of both the before and after definitions on my pc. You can
easily verify this yourself with a quick Google search]
[By
the way, Swine Flu caused only 18,449 lab confirmed deaths in 2009,
see Wikipedia. This out of a world population in 2009 of 6.8 billion.
There were 481k lab confirmed cases]
But
the clincher is the all death mortality per capita from the Office
for National Statistics, ONS, see the graph below. I was born in 1950
and for most of my life I have lived with a greater risk of death
than I did in 2020. For 53 of my 70 years my risk of death has been
HIGHER than it was in 2020.
Enormous
numbers of deaths and illness? No wonder they changed the definition
because under the old definition 2020 did not show a pandemic, it was
simply a bad flu season and we experience a bad flu season every few
years
This
pattern has been duplicated across the world. In the US there was no
increase at all
in all cause mortality per capita for 2020
Pandemic?
What Pandemic
Assumption
5 fails
Conclusions:
Covid1984
[surely the more appropriate name?] is clearly a house built on sand.
As
I said at the start then, if any one of their founding assumptions
fail then,
their
whole narrative fails
And all
these founding assumptions do
fail
as I have
demonstrated.
There
is no empirical evidence for any one of them, so all are unproven
Over
to you, what are YOU
going to do about it?
Come
on folks – wake up and smell the coffee
It
is up to us, all of us, because:
This
ends when we all say NO