The one mainstream vice that I must admit to is following the NFL. It was instilled in me from a very young age due to the popularity of the local team. If I could go back, I would make it so that I were not a watcher of the NFL, but alas…here I am…
With that out of the way, I noticed something important in the NFL’s handling of the coronavirus situation which has startling implications for the fraudulence of the coronavirus hysteria in general. More below…
First, it was Matthew Stafford. He is the quarterback of the Detroit Lions. Initially, Stafford came back with a positive coronavirus test and was placed on their coronavirus lists. Then…when Stafford was tested again, he came back negative. And negative again. And negative again. And negative again.
As it turned out, Stafford was not positive for the coronavirus at all. His positive test was sandwiched between all negative tests. It was a false positive. The NFL was left with a conundrum: What to do with a star player coming back with a false positive for the coronavirus? Well of course, they made an exception for him!
Imagine trying that one at your own workplace in the current climate of complete hysteria! Not a chance.
Now, guess what? Another starting NFL quarterback has come back with a false positive. This time it is Buffalo Bills starting quarterback Josh Allen. There are fewer details about Allen, but it must be assumed the same sequence of events played out as was seen with Stafford. One positive sandwiched between negatives.
The report below implies that these two star quarterbacks are just a few of MANY players, coaches, and staff getting false positive PCR results and receiving an exception!
The implications of this are actually staggering. This means that all those massive lines of cars of people coming out for their coronavirus tests were actually wasting their time. The result you got texted is meaningless in a vacuum. Do not forget, it has been shown in previous studies that the coronavirus PCR may have as high as an 80% false positive rate! Knock down all of those fear-mongering numbers from CNN’s main crawl. Those are garbage statistics.
Lest we forget folks, we do not need to make coronavirus dissent complicated. I am right with you in having substantial doubts about virology and germ theory and being certain that the PCR test is essentially useless. But these are complex ways to approach dissent here. Dissenting on this coronavirus mass hysteria is actually much simpler. By even the accepted mainstream statistics and definitions, this coronavirus is a common cold and has a case fatality rate of 0.3%. That is less fatal than the flu, which has come and gone every year without any mass hysteria.
Keep it simple, folks. Remind everyone…we have never had reason to panic or keep children out of schools because of the common cold, and there is no reason to start now. The data is in. This panic was predicated upon wildly inflated fatality percentages and images of hospitals being overrun. Neither of those things turned out to be true. Just because the media is not yet willing to let go of their fear-mongering (and your local PTA is busy with a 100 page coronavirus handbook), this does not mean that you need to participate in the mass hysteria.
If the response you get is about “long-term damage” from the coronavirus, ask those people how we could be seeing long-term damage when this has only been happening for less than a year? Bodies recover. I am sure if you test someone immediately after they have had a cold/flu, it will seem as though they have been irreparably damaged. This does not make it so. Remember…humans have this remarkable thing called an immune system! Our bodies heal themselves! 99.7% of people who get this virus recover without issue. This situation is mass hysteria, pure and simple…and it is mass hysteria being legitimized wholesale.
The NFL knows that the PCR tests are garbage. Will we ever see their data? I would be willing to bet my life that we will NEVER see the NFL’s data. Their place in society is too important to allow the false positives to jeopardize their product, so they are being allowed to make a SMART exception…a false positive exception.
All members of society should be afforded that same right. Anything less than that is hypocrisy pure and simple.
Piece of Mindful 
The real question is “Why are they publicizing all of these false positives?” Why not just sweep it under the rug?
LikeLike
They are not exactly making big headlines out of it. It might be that they had to find a way to backtrack after putting Stafford on the list and realizing that this was going to happen all over the place.
We tend to exaggerate how much people in power actually care that we can see through the charade. For 98% of the population, they won’t see anything amiss here.
LikeLike
Because they always push their fakery in our faces, it’s “revelation of the method”. I recently came across an interesting quote on propaganda by Anthony Daniels, an English psychiatrist:
Within an established totalitarian regime the purpose of propaganda is not to persuade, much less to inform, but rather to humiliate. From this point of view, propaganda should not approximate to the truth as closely as possible: on the contrary, it should do as much violence to it as possible. For by endlessly asserting what is patently untrue, by making such untruth ubiquitous and unavoidable, and finally by insisting that everyone publicly acquiesce in it, the regime displays its power and reduces individuals to nullities.
I think at this point “totalitarian” applies quite nicely to our world, don’t you?
LikeLiked by 2 people
That echoes the Vaclav Havel essay someone linked here once. Not sure about Havel but the essay had some good insights– The Power of the Powerless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s another take on Revelation of the Method as an occult public psychodrama using metaphysical alchemy. It’s an intentional effort to confuse and traumatize society, which leaves the “victims” more susceptible to further programming with the officially-sanctioned message. Brainwashing through trauma. Problem>Reaction>Solution. Here’s a link to an interview with Michael Hoffman, author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare:
“The following is a statement which comes from within the British Intelligence Wing of the Cryptocracy: ‘This demonstrates one of our simpler methods: realizing that our activities will, sooner or later, come to light, we structure our activities so as conspiracy researchers unravel them, they will release information into the public consciousness in such a way that it mirrors our initiatory procedure. In this way, the more we are investigated, the more masses of people are psychologically processed, by the very people who seek to expose us. The meme that constitutes our essential structure is then successfully mimicked within the consciousness of those who investigate us. Success can then be measured precisely to the extent that our work is exposed.’ ” http://www.amazon.com/Societies-Psychol…man/dp/0970378416
LikeLike
Thank you for the link and the quote, Carri. I just ordered Hoffmann’s Secret Societies book. I’ve often felt we in the conspiracy crowd are just as mentally enslaved by our awareness of hoaxes as the majority of people who are not aware… maybe even more so. Steve and Stephers’ work seems to be an effort to deal with that. It makes sense that the propagandists know perfectly well that the truth will eventually out, and that discovery of the truth, facilitated by people like us, is part of our overall humiliation and demoralization.
LikeLike
“The implications of this are actually staggering. This means that all those massive lines of cars of people coming out for their coronavirus tests were actually wasting their time. The result you got texted is meaningless. “….good one.
“Lest we forget folks, we do not need to make coronavirus dissent complicated at all. I am right with you in having substantial doubts about virology and germ theory and being certain that the PCR test is useless. But these are complex ways to approach dissent here. Dissenting on this coronavirus mass hysteria is actually much simpler!”
simple…complex. you can have it BOTH ways, and of course every fault in logic re numbers manipulation, or how many false negatives does it take to turn a positive infected quarterback into a “safe” quarterback, are strong evidence of the fraud…this is an excellent example you’ve keyed on. this one could reach the six-pack crowd.
attacking the virology does not need to be (or seen to be) complex. asking the basic simple questions, putting the burden of proof where it belongs is key, as jim west has pointed out. see his summary in this paper: https://harvoa-med.blogspot.com/2020/08/viriso.html.
“the virus”, in its past iterations (i.e. any of those trotted out in modern history), was the gradual development of the weapon. we are now staring down the barrel of the weapon perfected. ‘perfected’, not because it is so fearsome, like ebola is supposed to be, but because of all the machinery of control, carefully constructed over decades.
until and unless the viral paradigm (germ theory, if you will) is shown up for what it is, we are forever in the line of fire.
LikeLike
It is highly dependent upon your audience. I only meant to suggest that you don’t want to start attacking virology and germ theory with “Average Joe” you bump into on the street. They will see you as a kook and tune out. Though I recall we had this debate recently…what is the correct approach to take, and I think it went along similar lines.
I wholeheartedly agree that the coronavirus scam can be attacked on the facts on both the complex issues (virology, germ theory, PCR) and in a much more simple and logical way (low fatality, immune system, common sense).
LikeLike
Great piece, Fauxlex. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve despaired at what seemed the futility of debating any of this with maskers at all. I had tried approaching it from a variety of angles, accepting certain obviously bullshit elements of the story as true for the sake of argument, and pointing out that even with those concessions, nothing we are being ordered to do makes sense. It seemed pointless. BUT, this week, two different people—a co-worker and a relative—both as mainstream and anti-conspiracy as can be—shocked the hell out of me by telling me, out of the blue, that they now agree with me. Completely. I’m talking about virtue-signaling liberal Anderson-Cooper-and-Rachel-Maddox-watching “sheeple” who now believe, without qualification, that every facet of this COVID narrative is 100 % bullshit. And they both credited me for swaying them because I am the only person they know whose rejection of the narrative has nothing to do with politics or Trump. It seems that people can occasionally hear us when we speak outside the echo chamber. So thanks for bringing another angle to my attention—the NFL false positives. I’ll carry it around in my back pocket, instead of a mask.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s awesome to hear. I think a lot of us have started to question whether there actually is a group of people who are “on the fence”, so hearing this is a relief.
LikeLike
Thank you, you have inspired me to send the link to this outstanding piece via the family text.
‘Dissenting on this coronavirus mass hysteria is actually much simpler. By even the accepted mainstream statistics and definitions, this coronavirus is a common cold and has a case fatality rate of 0.3%. ‘
I’ve been telling people that for 6 months now and note that it’s also listed on the back of the Lysol can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DTOC,
Lately I just leave facts and statistics out of it as much as possible. Everyone knows they can find a “reliable” source to debunk the misinformation spread by crazy conspiracy theorists. (That 0.3 statistic isn’t true! It’s actually 5 percent! Anyone who says otherwise is counting on you to be mathematically ignorant, but you’re too smart for that because you’re listening to me!)
I seem to get at least a little mileage out of something Thomas E. Woods pointed out in his Mises Institute talk on YouTube—that virtually no old person in the world would want younger generations to sacrifice all we’re being told to sacrifice just so they can cling to another few years or months or weeks of life. Any old person worth a damn should be outraged and horrified when our leaders demand that their children and grandchildren to renounce life’s greatest and most meaningful pleasures for the sake of the old and infirm. Of course, they are now saying the long-term effects on healthy young COVID survivors may be dire, but Fauxlex’s rebuttal to that nonsense in the original post is nice and concise. I might also add that those long term health effects are predicted by the same “experts” whose predictions about death rates have consistently proven to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
LikeLike
Thank you, Scott, I admit to being one of those ‘outraged old people’ because it’s blatantly obvious the kind of world the next generations will be forced to live in.
My inherent, common sense is no match for the many science god worshiping enthusiasts in my circle, yet it does not deter me from speaking simple truths, such as giving a child 80 vaccines before they turn 16 years of age and thinking it’s safe? Or treating cancer for over 60 years with cancer causing chemicals? Or that Coronavirus, akin to Mono, Epstein Barr, Lyme, will show up in a test long after recovery????
And every single day throughout this scam you can expect to read multiple MSM BS articles, making people like myself look like fools; https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/antisocial-traits-linked-to-lower-coronavirus-safety-adherence-researchers-say/
LikeLike
Love the term “science god”
LikeLike
The desired results? The public willingly submit to fascism. By way of lies & deception. What deity is the Father of All Lies?
LikeLike
faulex, mark, stephers, everybody…take note of this latest pingback: https://lys-dor.com/2020/08/24/david-icke-and-dr-andrew-kaufman-analyze-the-match-between-sars-cov-2-and-chromosome-8-sequences/
LikeLike
We are well aware of the attention from David Icke. It is part of the unexpected wave we have seen in recent days. Kind of wild, to be honest.
LikeLike
You want to associate yourself with david icke?
getting a little whiff of recognition and it feels kind of sweet?
you should be doubting and pushing that association away…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
All I said was that it was “wild”, and that is because it is. My true feelings on it are very complicated.
LikeLike
yes, all you said was that it was kind of “wild”, which can be seen as a somewhat neutral word; perhaps though, you should be reminding your readers that icke is the man who pushes the idea that our problem is that our leaders are reptiles from another planet. Is not that enough to out him and make you want to take a less neutral word?
I will not even discount the possibility that we have visitors from other planets, but even if we do, his whole presentation is to mislead; since you are probably clever enough to know that, i fail to see what sort of “complicated” feelings you might have about him. But… i am all ears
LikeLike
It is difficult for me to express the various layers of my feelings on the Icke attention and that piece in general. For one, I had not expected an old post from four months ago to go so viral. It is not the post that I would have hoped would go viral, because although the findings do indeed further undermine the PCR test, a deeper scientific understanding can explain why the result isn’t as big as had seemed at the time. Andrew Kaufman explained this very adequately. If anything comes from that piece, I hope it is that the scientific community realizes that they should never use PCR primers or probes that can be matched in human DNA. If my post triggers that kind of a widespread scientific change, it would be a huge source of pride for me…far more than pride from Icke finding my post.
Beyond that, I completely agree that Icke is not entirely to be trusted…none of the major faces are. With that said, it is great that something on POM has gone viral. Mainly, I have tried to just watch from the sidelines bemused by the rapid spread. I don’t think there’s any overt association between POM and Icke just because Icke picked up on something I found. I am simply amused by the fact that it reached someone at the level of Icke, and happy for POM that it has brought us a new wave of followers.
I can understand why some reader might see Icke saying the words “Piece of Mindful” and immediately become suspicious. We conspiracy researchers tend to be a paranoid lot. With that said, I am just “some guy”, and I was as surprised as anyone to see that post spread so rapidly and reach David Icke. I had nothing whatsoever to do with that happening. My independence is maintained. We have no connection to Icke simply because he found something I wrote interesting.
Hope this helps explain what I mean when I say that I have complex feelings on the matter. There really are numerous facets for me personally as the author of the information. Although I completely understand a little suspicion, I can tell you that there is nothing to be worried about as far as my independence is concerned. I’m not going to crap on Icke to distance myself simply because he found something that I wrote interesting, even if I am generally suspicious of the man.
LikeLike
Where’s the beef?
The original specimens, first labeled the “Controla” Virus, were quickly destroyed, and eventually renamed, Covid. However, one surviving slide was spirited out of the lab.
https://is.gd/GVWs1w
LikeLike
The “just the flu bro” internet meme in March and April was a brilliant part of the PSYOP, because what was being mocked was the simplest and most accurate argument against the lockdowns, that they were over a flu that was no more lethal than normal flus.
There was an interesting point that these things are usually not air-tight. So they will fake a scheduled speaker because the real person is too drugged up to speak and they don’t want to bother with rescheduling or substituting, or making the fake look convincing. Because the purpose of these things is not to convince ME. Its to convince various low information types (including people holding senior positions in organizations), so the effort and expense behind the fake is often less than in the typical Disney attraction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are reading my mind on this one. The propagandists made sure to attack that flu argument with full force early on because it was actually an extremely valid argument. The only thing they could respond with was that we needed to wait and see about the fatality rate. Hence all the early artificial boosting of that fatality rate figure.
Well, now we know that the fatality rate is not even at flu levels…so remind me again why we’re completely remaking society? Sheesh it’s almost like there’s an agenda at work here.
But hey, I’m a crazy conspiracy theorist, so…
LikeLike
If they really are running actual tests on these players, wouldn’t they keep getting more false positives, some percent of the time? And have to bench them?
SMJ had a good link a while back on false positives, and the absurdity of using a faulty test to check itself. As if multiple faulty tests will somehow average out to a correct result?
I guess that might have some truth if there were any people who consistently “averaged” positive and others who “averaged” negative. But then no single test result could be given credence. (Putting aside whether the test is just finding a gene sequence or some other irrelevancy.)
When you say “try that with your employer,” is it the case that one positive outweighs many negatives for civilians? Or you mean that most people have trouble enough getting one test result back?
LikeLike
“Try that with your employer” meaning that yes…for an average person, if you were to disclose a positive coronavirus result to your employer, you would basically be treated as though you had the Black Death and there would be no way you’d talk them out of it. Even if you had evidence it was a false positive.
They’d probably shut down the local office that you had been working at for three weeks and send in a disinfecting crew. I am not kidding. Regardless of whether or not it was a false positive. They wouldn’t care once they’d heard they had an employee with a positive test.
LikeLike
Okay. So what about my other question– if you retest these guys, you aren’t guaranteed to get a run of negatives. Unless you just lie about the results.
LikeLike
Not if the PCR test actually did what it claims to do. That’s why I’m saying this is so significant. It implies that the 80% false positive rate is somewhere in the ballpark.
LikeLike
Hmm, 9 out of 9. You don’t say?
LikeLike