I was listening yesterday to a podcast by James
Delingpod Delingpole – background noise as I went about my chores. Delingpole is a bright guy, but just slightly not bright enough. I don’t listen to everything he puts out, but at various times he has seen through the Coronavirus hoax, only going down the wrong path, thinking that the virus was manufactured in a laboratory and escaped. Maybe he has come around, I don’t know.
His guest that I listened to was Alistair Haimes (link to podcast), an investment manager who was “radicalised by the lockdown.” Much of this discussion resonated, but Haimes believes there is a virus. At some point, and since it is long and rambling I’m not going back, he notes that 80% of those who test positive for the Sars-Cov-2 virus are “asymptomatic carriers.”
That stuck in my brain, and reminded me of the paper published in the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology (2020, Volume 41(4):485-488 (English translation here), lead author Zhuang Guihua, which stated that among asymptomatic carriers, the false positive rate for the RT-PCR test was 80.33%. If you are thinking along the same lines as me, you might see that what I am suspecting is that all of these asymptomatic carriers are nothing more than false positives, and that the test is the disease, which is not something caused by any new, novel and dangerous virus.
I urge you read the Zhuang paper, as it is accessible to ordinary people. The approach is mathematical, and you might think that as a retired CPA I have some insight into that field. Trust me, not so. My fellow CPAs might assert otherwise, but I spent my career doing arithmetic, not mathematics. I was still able to grasp the essentials of the paper, as with the following from page 8 (of 9)):
The types of people targeted for screening has also been widened, which will undoubtedly result in the reporting of more and more “asymptomatic infections”. Based on the information currently available, this study estimates the reasonable range of changes in related indicators and deduces the proportion of false positives in positive screening measures among close contacts of the case. This study found that when the infection rate and reported sensitivity and specificity of close contacts were taken as the most probable values, the positive predictive value was only 19.67%. Conversely, the proportion of false positives in the positive results was 80.33%.
Let’s examine the notion of asymptomatic carrier: Koch’s Postulates, scorned by virologists, and probably useless anyway, are still looked upon as valid criteria for identity of pathogens. They are merely logical assumptions which Robert Koch himself stepped away from years later. However, the first of the four KP’s, that a [pathogen] must be present in every case of the disease, carries with it its own antithesis, that the very same pathogen should not be present in others who do not show symptoms of the same disease. The logical conclusion in that case would be that the pathogen is not the cause of a disease, and is perhaps just a passenger. This sets the whole field of virology back to its proper place in medical science: pseudoscience. But instead, they come up with the idea of “asymptomatic” to replace “false positive.”
The field was rescued by Thomas Rivers, who, working for the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, published in 1937 an article advising that Koch’s Postulates can be set aside in the field of virology, asserting instead that a virus must be associated with a disease (correlation), but accepting that many viruses are present in a host without causing a disease. Thus did virology jump the tracks, as there was no longer a scientific rigor behind it. The absence of a requirement that a pathogen always produce a disease left everything open to speculation, even though done by scientists in white lab coats. This opens the door to great doubt as to the usefulness of their work. Do viruses even cause disease? Everyone says yes, but proof is lacking.
The coincidence of the Zhuang paper and its assertion that the RT-PCR produces 80.33% false positive left me thinking that the 80% “asymptomatic carriers” are merely healthy people who were so unfortunate as to be subjected to an unreliable test.
We recently canceled a trip to Juneau after we learned that anyone passing through the airport there would be required to show paperwork that they either took and passed the RT-PCR test and came up negative (odd, because such people can still be infected by positive carriers, right?), or who have tested positive for the antibody.
The Zhuang paper shows the Covid-19 test using RT-PCR to be virtually useless. Keep in mind that RT-PCR cannot specify presence of a virus or measure a viral load, and is wholly dependent on the quality of research in isolating, filtering and purifying a virus before pulling a genetic sequence for it. That work has never been done, never will be done, making the RT-PCR test a simple hoax.
David Crowe, in a May 13,2020 paper analyzing the state of antibody testing, finds that none of the tests, due to the rush to get them on the market, are properly vetted. He concludes on page 14 that the tests are “fatally flawed”.
“At present no antibody tests are properly validated, and the results cannot be relied upon, particularly not to make sweeping changes in society, such as mandatory vaccination and quarantine of people who do not have the ‘right’ antibody test results.”
Thus are we subjected to a gigantic hoax. Dr. Andrew Kaufman has undressed the lack of rigor behind the supposed isolation of the virus, simply not done. (Scroll down here to “The Rooster in the River of Rats,” a video censored by YouTube.) I have suggested for some time now that regarding RT-PCR, the test IS the virus. It is so unreliable that its use constitutes medical fraud. It is dangerous in that those who suffer a false positive suffer loss of liberty. Finally, the antibody tests, searching for an antigen to a virus that has never been purified, can be nothing more than fraud.
It is all a joke, fake, fake fake. Comes next the vaccine, equally fraudulent, but most likely serving some other nefarious purpose having nothing to do with the current scamdemic.
I look about me and see the practice of modern medicine to be in the Dark Ages, full of quacks and charlatans, even criminals like Anthony Fauci, able to bring our world to a halt based on nothing more pertinent than witches sitting around a cauldron chanting “Double bubble, toil and trouble.”
Here is an article from Time regarding “asymptomatic carriers.” Note that Jamie Ducharme, the author, carries with her no skepticism regarding the testing going on around us. This is required to report on Covid-19 in mainstream media. It never occurs to her that the tests that uncover “asymptomatic carriers” might be flawed. Instead she writes,
“The research shows just how prevalent asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 may be—a reality that both suggests official case counts are drastic underestimates, and emphasizes the importance of practicing social distancing even if you feel healthy.
Researchers have known for months that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is possible and common, but without population-wide testing, it’s been difficult to estimate how many people get infected without showing symptoms. The new paper provides an example of how widespread asymptomatic transmission can be, at least in a contained environment.”*
“Asymptomatic transmission” is a myth brought about by a defective test, nothing more. I urge that anyone reading this under all circumstances avoid both the Covid-19 RT-PCR test and the associated antibody test. The latter is less dangerous but will impart nothing in the way of useful information for as much as $150. The former is dangerous, costing you personal freedom for no valid scientific reason.
Still to come, the vaccination, equally fraudulent. I concur with James Corbett, not linked here, but who said in one of his reports on Bill Gates that when the guy finally dies, someone will have to drive a stake through his heart to make sure he stays dead.
*Ducharme’s second paragraph here is as vague and weasel-worded as anything ever written, full of words that kind of make her point but … not quite. “Possible and common?” Whaaa? “How widespread [it] can be?” “At least in a contained environment?” That is all vague, undefined, un-attackable, and professional. She did her job.