NFL Remains Key Uncensored Coronavirus Source

We live in highly censored times. The mainstream media only reports items fitting their narratives. Scientists only report statistics fitting their narratives. It can be next to impossible to pick apart information from the media and scientists to get an uncensored look at this coronavirus hysteria situation.

Where has the best information come from? Interestingly, it has been the National Football League providing the most unfiltered coronavirus information! Who would have thought?

This is for a multitude of reasons. First, the NFL is basically an exception to all the rules. Any other workplace with positive tests would panic, shut their offices down indefinitely, and not open back up again for quite some time. This is a obviously a problem, considering the prevalence of false positives in the PCR tests. Even still, the NFL has been allowed to operate. Through their exceptional position, we have been privy to some very interesting peeks into uncensored coronavirus information.

The first batch of true PCR positive results in the NFL was seen in the last few weeks coming from the Tennessee Titans. It is no surprise, then, that the Titans QB has given us a very interesting quote to analyze…

This report shows that quarterback Ryan Tannehill has “lost some faith” in the coronavirus testing. The full quote is below.

“It was a roller coaster for sure. Definitely the fact that we had guys with no symptoms testing positive and we had guys with full blown symptoms getting consecutive negative tests on multiple days was really eye-opening,” Tannehill said. “Just the fact of we really don’t know. So, we have to to treat everyone as if they have the virus. Unfortunately, really probably lost some faith in the testing system just through everything we’ve been through over the past week and a half, but we said that from the beginning that testing is not going to prevent the virus from being spread, it’s the way we handle ourselves with all the protocols and handle ourselves outside the building as well, so it’s been a roller coaster for sure.”

The interesting piece here for me is that the Titans have had a sickness going through their locker room. The next most interesting thing is that the PCR tests have seemingly not shown a strong correlation with the people who are actually sick.

This is why I have previously postulated that the SARS-CoV-2 particle, whatever it might be, is actually just indirectly related to a specific type of regular cold. The process of getting a cold must be immensely complex within the body. Imagine that SARS-CoV-2 simply plays a contributing role, in certain people.

In that way, we can imagine one player who suddenly gets sick with a cold, and it is the type of cold that makes the SARS-CoV-2 particle more prevalent in the body. He starts sneezing, touching things, etc. If he is tested, he would repeatedly test positive (i.e. not a false positive). Unfortunately, any person who has touched any of the surfaces that he sneezed upon or breathed in proximity to the sneeze might ALSO test positive. This does not mean that the virus is contagious…all kinds of particles come along for the ride in this fashion…they do not go on to infect the other person. These are your “asymptomatic carriers”.

It is not contagious…but it certainly can travel from one person to another.

This, especially, is why single PCR tests are so useless. They cannot distinguish between active infection and mere harmless exposure to the particle…without multiple tests. Detection does not even really mean active infection. It simply implies exposure to a certain particle. It is no wonder that the tests have been confounding!

Then, it is very interesting that the Titans have had sick players who are testing negative. This implies that while people do get colds in batches, it is likely not being spread through contagiousness. If that were the case, the entire NFL would be sick by now. And it would all be coronavirus PCR positive. The wave of Titans players getting sick without all sick players testing positive implies that the colds were caused by some other mechanism (terrain theorists, this is all yours).

With that said, it does seem that the spike in coronavirus PCR positives is truly correlated to cold-like sickness, in some way. This is the point I have been trying to make for days. It does seem that the spike in coronavirus positive PCR results is correlated, in some loose way, to an outbreak of cold-like illness.

This is where the skeptic community is still operating in outright denial, as far as I am concerned. We can acknowledge the connection between PCR positives and colds, and acknowledge that the PCR machine does sometimes correctly identify the presence of a certain particle without having to call ourselves mainstream. This situation is so, so much more complex than that.

In fact, to truly suss out the truth behind the coronavirus hysteria, we probably need to take a deep dive into the legitimate scientific results. That way, we can see where the real science stops and where the propaganda begins. If we operate under complete denial, we are selling ourselves short.

[PS: Yes, comments are now closed. If you all want to continue pushing outright denialism on a post where I stress how important it is to stay away from denialism, do it somewhere else.]

26 thoughts on “NFL Remains Key Uncensored Coronavirus Source

  1. … and acknowledge that the PCR machine does sometimes correctly identify the presence of a certain particle…”

    Why must we acknowledge that? Why have any faith in the machine at all in regard to testing for a supposed virus? Who says there is any honesty at all in this very large scam? Why is burden of proof not on those who demand that we believe that there is any validity at all to the testing regime? Let’s get them to start ‘splainen the positive tests for pawpaw, sheep, goat, and now a dog and a front stoop?


    1. Again, those are single PCR tests, and likely false positives. If one of those items repeatedly tested positive, I would be fascinated.


        1. Your position on PCR continues to puzzle me. We have firmly established the problem of false positives, yet here in this case (weird things testing positive), you insinuate that as evidence of fraud instead of evidence of false positives?

          Why? Seriously. It is very confusing to me, because the weird objects testing positive are strong support on the case of the prevalence of false positives. You talk about false positives when it suits you, but then you use the weird object positives to try to insinuate fraud instead of false positives. I do not get it.

          It just has come to feel like you are so dead-set on painting PCR as fraudulent, that you will not let anything reassess that position.

          We totally agree that the way the propaganda has been utilized surrounding PCR is fraudulent and criminal. A single positive test is totally unscientific, yet it is harming people and keeping them locked indoors. This is wrong. At the same time, this has nothing to do with whether the PCR machine is technically capable of detecting something, under repeated tests and tight controls.


          1. If there is no novel new virus, which I think to be the case, what is PCR detecting? This is not new territory for me …I’ve been saying for months that the test is the virus.

            There are any number of ways that the outcome of testing can be skewed to satisfy the needs of those running the scam. These means do not have to be fancy … they can rig voting machines to produce desired outcomes, why not PCRs? I read where any magnification over 35 is unreliable, but certain test kits call for 45. What if they merely ramp up the amplifications to produce the desired number of positive results?

            Or, it could be as simple as the long q-tip they shove up your nostril being contaminated. What I suspect with the dog and the front stoop, along with the pawpaw, goat and sheep, was that the machines were rigged to produce those results no matter the input. This scam is so large that everything put into place is there merely there to enhance the illusion of a virus. So I don’t imagine it finds anything at all, and that they merely turn up the positives as their long range plan demands. The purpose of PCR testing is to put out a false veneer of science to keep the scam alive. Behind that veneer is fraud, nothing more.

            I don’t know if you saw the Kaufman/Ickes interview about the moon project, where by 2021 they are going to ramp up the testing in Great Britain to 10,000,000 a week, and continually test and retest the entire population month and and out, routinely quarantining millions for no good reason. Kaufman used the correct word for this plan: fascism. That is all this has been from the beginning, something fascists historically are very good at, using a fake emergency to seize power, never yielding it back. So I find your fascination with the possibility of PCR yielding possibly true results due to people having colds to be a pointless side track. This scamdemic is far far bigger than that.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. This is where I am saying that if you are unwilling to evolve with the evidence, you will paint wilder and wilder conspiracies to fit your belief. When I talk about elections being rigged, I do not believe that every machine in the country is putting out completely fraudulent numbers. No, what I believe there is that there are party operatives in key swing states with batches of completely fake voters and they stuff ballot boxes with fraudulent votes to tip the scales in key states. There are a hundred ways they can fiddle with results in this way. In the 2016 Presidential, the results were really only very kooky in a few critical swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and a few others. I am not suggesting that every machine in the election is totally fake.

              But this is how far it has gotten to try and stand by the idea that these PCR machines are totally fraudulent and totally incapable of doing anything. It is being alleged that the Q-tips are somehow pre-contaminated in an insanely complex manner to show certain results by time and by geography. I find this to be an absurdly long-shot explanation. Same with the idea that every machine is rigged to churn out whatever result is wanted. Hugely unlikely.

              You say “The purpose of PCR testing is to put out a false veneer of science to keep the scam alive”, and I mostly agree! The only place we differ there is in that I believe the PCR machine is actually capable of detecting a real something. You have not been willing to say this. I have not understood why, but it seems hugely important for you that PCR cannot be conceded to be actually capable of doing a real process.

              I have not understood it. The scam can still be a scam even if the PCR machine is detecting a real something, and that real something is even broadly correlated to colds. The response I keep seeing is to fight that concept as hard as possible. I do not get the reason for this.

              My main point in the post is pertinent here…if we operate under outright denial, we are ensuring that we will not be able to argue with real scientists in an informed, intelligent way. They will simply laugh us out of there, and they would be right to…if we keep simply denying that this machine is capable of doing something. We can argue until kingdom come how to interpret that result, but if we are simply denying it is capable of doing something, we become a mockery of true skepticism and dissent.


              1. I (mis)spent tons of time back when they introduced electronic voting trying to understand the use of the machines … most elections do not matter, as either side is controlled by the same apparatus. A few are altered to affect a desired outcome, and Trump was one such outcome. I don’t care about elections anymore, though I did just vote to lower our state income tax and to all reintroduction of gray wolves here in CO. I don’t imagine either will pass, but on such low-level matters, I suspect my vote will be counted.

                I think I hit on the methodology when I wrote that they could i crease the positives by merely increasing the number of amplifications. At 60 they get everyone, at 35 they get very few. So they likely have a scale they use to generate the desired number of positives. That makes sense.

                Anyway, you really should watch the video that Stephers gave us. It answers all questions.


                1. I did, and it really doesn’t. Again, I find it shameless that you refer to this video like it has all the answers, so you don’t actually need to answer.


            2. I don’t even think it depends on the machine.

              Even the nurse performing the COnsential Nose Rape (CORONA) does not know if the patient has “Covid”. The power is in the hands of a select group of doctors. Virologists and the like.

              Remember when the HIV test took “6 months” for it to give results? Those time spans are impossible now with the global dempanic.

              There is another factor that I haven’t seen talked about in many places and that is a financial motive. Families of “covid deceased” here get $ 30,000,000 (or about 9000 USD) for a death from Covid. Where is that money coming from I asked my friend who told this to me. Why are other death causes not reimbursed with such an amount of money (enough to buy a simple small house!)?


        2. Here is my issue, I am saying so many things that fit with the general skepticism here, but on this one small ancillary issue (PCR can actually detect something), this results in basically a complete rejection of what I am saying.

          -I am saying the illness and PCR particle may originate within the body instead of externally
          -I am saying that the illness is likely not contagious
          -I am against masks and lockdowns
          -I have speculated that we may have actually been contaminated with the PCR particle
          -I wholeheartedly agree on the prevalence of false positives in PCR, and the criminality of the propaganda behind PCR

          Given all of this, if I suggest that PCR is actually capable of detecting something here, it seems that overrides everything else and causes you to take a contrary position. I do not understand, at all.


          1. Isn’t it possible that the PCR tests might be what’s causing people to get sick? I’ve wondered if the flu shots are actually how people get the flu. I’ve never had the flu, and I’ve never had a flu shot. Just saying.


        3. Think of it like this, Mark. In your HIV/AIDS theory, you acknowledge that AIDS is a real syndrome (as I am saying colds are real here). I also do not believe that you question whether some people genuinely do test HIV positive. The scam there must be built upon a known correlation between a person who will test HIV-positive and the syndrome known as AIDS. Nowhere in your paper do you question the test.

          Similarly here, we have people getting colds, and a machine testing positive with some fuzzy correlation to colds. Why claim the test is totally gamed?

          We should be making the exact argument you made there. The syndrome is not directly related to the machine test result. The thing being tested for is not the actual cause of the illness. That is basically my argument! Still, this does not mean that the machine itself is not validly detecting something.

          For some reason here, you are insisting that we believe the machine is not validly detecting something. I do not get it.


  2. Fauxlex, I hesitate to chime in. I really do – for fear of getting hammered, as well as ensnared in this heated discussion. In my opinion, this internal strife is keeping the POM community in a vicious ourobouric cycle. At some point, wouldn’t it be okay to just agree to disagree? Why is it not okay for some of us to claim that the PCR is a fraudulent tool being used to perpetuate this operation, and to state that ALL the results are false? There is no proof otherwise. We can not trust ANY data that is reported, so data should not be a talking point. It seems clear that without the use of a PCR, there would be no narrative. That said, I just want to remind you that the PCR is NOT a test. It is a manufacturing tool. It is a Xerox machine on steroids. It is simply amplifying some fragment of genetic material. No researcher has any clear evidence as to what genetic material this is. I imagine you have probably seen these links, but I will post them anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is no proof otherwise? You say yourself “it is amplifying a piece of genetic material”. In the absence of that piece of genetic material, no result should be found. You say that, and still you say no proof? Again, I am just met with just outright denial. I am not ASKING people to push their denial in the comments to my postings, they just are. On the same token, I would ask…why can I not post as I post without being bombarded with the denialism?

      It is my post, and if I am only going to be confronted with outright denial, I am going to question it. Do not attempt to paint that as ME failing to accept a counter-belief. The obstinacy has been on the side of those who refuse to accept any evidence, typically because of some unrelated shenaningans, whereby their logic is that because we are seeing something funny in one place, they do not have to take into account anything else.

      It is the poisonous certainty that I have been referring to that I have been encountering here. My beliefs have evolved with evidence so that my theories best fit the situation. Others here are stuck in what they have believed from the beginning, and it seems to be their MO to excuse away or ignore anything that does not fit with what they already believe.

      I have conceded points to people here who I find to be borderline trolls, if I feel they make a compelling point. However, on the topic of rt-PCR being capable of detecting something, I am met with outright denial here. No evidence would sway them, as they would continue to claim it was all a big fraud. This is possible with any topic…if you are so dug in that you are willing to accept wilder and wilder conspiracies to hold your position. To me, this is the damaging form of conspiracy theorizing, and the kind that we are ridiculed for.

      I do think it is all one big fraud…the propaganda, that is. The PCR machine? Capable of detecting something, even if the propaganda is utilizing that in an indefensible manner. As I say in my post, we only make ourselves look ridiculous to outright deny that the PCR machine is capable of detecting something. I fear that POM is being flooded in this regard to blackwash coronavirus dissent, so that to be an accepted coronavirus dissenter, you have to hold a scientifically illiterate position.


      1. Stephers posted at 2:28 PM, you responded at 2:46, and your comment was long, my point is that you did not watch the 27 minute video she attached. You should have. All points are addressed.


        1. That video has been playing in the background the entire time, and you go ahead and point to something in that video that you think counters what I am saying to you here. Do not simply point to some video like I am totally refuted there, without even saying how it refutes me. Right now I am listening to Mullis talk about HIV, and it actually lead me to adding another comment to you in support of my arguments!

          PS-Talk about underhanded tactics…refer to the video like it just magically makes you right and me wrong.


    2. By the way, I myself have said virtually all of the points found at your link. I myself have said that SINGLE coronavirus PCR tests are scientifically useless. However, repeated testing will show a legitimate detection of the target sequence. The interpretations of what that sequence means are myriad. These are all things I have said myself over and over and over again.

      I keep seeing people try to use the exact same points to make the insinuation that the machine is not doing anything at all. To the point that people are claiming the Q-tips are rigged and the machine is rigged to put out a specific result!

      This is where I think we make a mockery of skepticism. There are so many ways to interpret these results, including alternative ways (like I have been making). I have used the exact same evidence to try and at least paint a scientifically coherent theory. Others are using these points to fuel scientific incoherence and pure denial.


  3. A false positive is an erroneous confirmation, right? So showing a result while that shouldn’t be there.
    A true positive then would mean that
    1 – the PCR test actually measures something – evidence?
    2 – the measured substance/element/whatever it is they claim they measure is the “Covid virus”

    If “viri” (literally: “poison”) would be spread through contagion, the “true positive” could be on bananas, papayas (thank you Tanzanian president!) and keyboards etc.

    But then still we don’t know what it is that PCR test “measures”. If your idea from the beginning, that it just measures strings of DNA, is correct, then everything humans have touched could have “Corona”.

    I really fail to see how you can “be on the fence”. It seems painful.


        1. If it’s an escape to call gibberish gibberish, guilty as charged.

          I muddled through, but it is your actual POINT that I am calling gibberish. I say in my post that people may be testing positive by touching things. You say something similar, but then kind of trail off into an incoherent concluding sentence out of the blue. You start talking about a contagion out of the blue.

          Related to your #2, I never said the particle was the agent causing the disease. You go off from there like that is what I am claiming. It is not what I am claiming.

          All in all, I just have no idea what you think you’re proving or saying above. Reads like a lot of fancy buzz words, and you will probable try to link to your website next. It being a coherent argument? Not really.

          Although you seem to be all alone in thinking this thing really is contagious, to the point that you even think it can infect inanimate objects, and those are not false positives or harmless contamination, but actually some super virus infecting an inanimate object! A lot of incoherent nonsense, is mostly what I see in your comments.


    1. If I have some hamburger in my mouth and I start choking, I will cough and hack that hamburger all over your face. This does not mean that you will suddenly come down with hamburger-itis.

      The definitions I am reading on contagious say “likely to spread and affect others”.


Comments are closed.