Updated: Mar 19, 2021
Note: For the complete "Table of Contents" of objections to the pandemic being a psyop (psychological operation) following the shock-doctrine playbook, and a full explanation of how and why it was deployed, and what its architects are seeking from it, and how to defeat them, visit our main page on covid.
"Hey, how dare you question covid!
I know _____ people who got it!
I had it myself!
My ______ had it!
And someone I know died from it!"
We offer our condolences. We're very sorry for your suffering and/or loss.
But we have 2 questions.
How do you know it was a brand-new virus from Wuhan?
"A test said so."
What kind of test?
"A nasal swab PCR test, just like the rest of them."
The PCR test is not fit for the purpose of diagnosing active infections in patients. It's a research tool, used for gene-sequencing. It's not meant for clinical diagnosis.
"But they're using it for that."
Yes, they sure are.
And it's unscientific. And nearly unprecedented. The medical community has never tested for a respiratory virus on a mass-scale this way before. And for good reason: It doesn't make scientific sense to do so.
Even the test's inventor, the Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, said so. In fact, he insisted. Here's a video of him explaining why:
You may be tempted to dismiss his testimony because of his personal demeanor, attire, and/or speaking style. But keep in mind, he invented the PCR test - the thing they're using to test for covid - he invented it - and he won the Nobel Prize for doing so.
Far from him being unqualified to question The Holy Priesthood of Science, most of the priesthood is actually unqualified to contest him.
He invented it in the 90's, partially to fill the need for sequencing the genome of HIV. But he became dismayed when he saw that his colleagues in the field were repurposing it to test for individual infections, for clinical diagnosis, because it is not fit for such a purpose. The video above explains why. Seriously, watch it. Scroll up, if you haven't.
Strangely enough, Anthony Fauci was one of the primary offenders.
Not much has changed, apparently.
"So why is this relevant?"
When the inventor of the test says you're not supposed to use it for a particular purpose (in this case, patient diagnosis), don't you think his opinion carries some weight?
Especially if he's a Nobel laureate?
Remember: He didn't just win a Nobel "and" invent PCR. He won his Nobel FOR inventing PCR.
Since he's the inventor, perhaps he knows something about it, at a deep level, which most other scientists don't quite grasp? Since he was able to invent it, he must have some insight into its processes at a depth that most other people, even others in the field of virology, haven't quite grasped.
The inventor's opinion matters.
"So you want me to trust the inventor?"
It's not like we're going on purely trust here. His argument actually makes sense.
If the test picks up fragments of old RNA floating around, and doesn't tell you whether there's any active infection, then how does it make sense to use it for diagnosing the same?
"It obviously doesn't."
Furthermore, if it gets triggered positive by absolutely anything as long as you turn the cycle threshold (ct) number up high enough, then how do you even know you detected "The Virus" at all? Above 40 cycles, a common cold can trigger it. Above 45 cycles, your own RNA could trigger it. How do you even know what it is you're picking up?
And how do you know what ct number to use?
Do you know what ct number was being used at the lab that analyzed your test results?
"Hmm... that's a good question. I don't."
Has that number remained the same throughout the "pandemic"? Or have they changed it at some point?
Who gets to select the number? Do you know?
What set of criteria did they use to select it?
Once you start thinking hard about these questions, it becomes obvious that this entire testing regime is fundamentally flawed, and unscientific.
"I understand what you're saying. But if it wasn't covid, what WAS it?"
Can you think of any other diseases that involve the same symptoms?
"And the common cold, if the patient is frail..."
"Are you saying covid is the flu?"
The misidentification of the flu is one component of the scamdemic, but it's not the totality. The scamdemic consists of contributions from multiple different angles of deception and misrepresentation. It's multi-layered.
To start at the beginning, visit the main page on covid.
"Ok wait wait, back up. You're saying covid... is the flu? Partially, at least?"
Well, the graphs line up:
And the flu has "disappeared."
Mainstream news admits that there is no flu this year:
Has Covid killed off the flu? Experts pose the intriguing question as influenza cases nosedive by 98% across the globe
The W.H.O. has a graph of it disappearing:
And here's a table:
Doesn't that seem odd to you?
"Well they say that it's because of masks and social distancing."
So then why didn't these measures eradicate covid?
"Because people weren't following them! The anti-maskers and lockdown protesters didn't follow! So covid spread!"
So what we have here is a case of Schrodinger's Mask.
A mask that exists in a state of quantum superposition in which it is, simultaneously, both worn (in relation to the flu), and unworn (in relation to covid). It all depends on which virus is doing the observing.
"But that's because covid is more contagious! The masks stop the flu, but not covid!"
How do you know it's more contagious?
"Because the scientists say so."
"OK maybe not... but just look at how fast it spreads!"
How do you know how fast it spreads?
"Because of the... um... uh... errrr...
Yea. Ok. Because of the PCR tests whose inventor said they aren't fit for diagnosing individual infections.
I think I get it now."
There ya go!
"Is there anything else I can take a look at, to better understand what's wrong with using PCR this way?"
Sure. This video provides a pretty concise primer. Very easy to understand for regular folks.
"Thanks, I'll take a look at that. But in the meantime, I'm not 100% ready to declare that the disease I experienced/witnessed was the flu.
It might have really been a brand-new supervirus from Wuhan."
Ok, you can continue to assume that, if you want. Let's proceed, under that assumption, to Question #2:
* * *
Even if it really is a new virus does it justify making the whole world come to a standstill?
"Because it's a killer plague, the likes of which we've never seen before in our lifetimes! If we didn't shut down society, there would be bodies piled up in the streets!"
You know that's not true.
This isn't March 2020 anymore. Perhaps it was logical to assume the worst - back then - when we didn't know what we were about to face. Maybe it made sense to play it extra safe, until we figured out what we were dealing with. Maybe.
But the Imperial Models turned out to be wildly off - just like everything else that comes out of that fear-mill. They weren't even close. The head of their research team even got caught banging his mistress - from another household - at the peak of the curve, even while his own "models" said it was the worst disease in 100 years. Did he even believe his own bullshit?
You've had an entire year to do your research, and figure out what's going on. This is not a "once-in-a-century plague."
Not even close.
The U.S. state of Florida, famously, has had no lockdown, no shutdown, no social distancing requirements, no capacity limits, and almost no masks.
Same with Sweden.
Same with Nepal.
Same with Turkey.
Same with Belarus.
If what you say is true, these whole states and countries should be missing half their populations by now.
Instead, they are fine. There is no noticeable plague at all. People are not "tripping over bodies."
The people of these places did nothing to stop it, and it turned out there was nothing to stop.
Same for Africa, and India. What happened in the slums of Nairobi, and Lagos, and Kinshasa? In Delhi, Mumbai, and Calcutta?
The people in these places can't social distance, even if they want to. It's too crowded. The homes are tiny, and whole families share one or two rooms.
They can't "work from home." They can't "Zoom."
Malnutrition is rampant. Immune systems are not optimal.
They have very little access to medical care.
Mask-wearing is low, as traditional cultures see through the idiocy that pours out of academic bubbles and ivory towers.
Yet nothing happened.
Where are all the bodies, in those places? Shouldn't the residents be tripping over them?
Nothing happened. There was no plague.
(Perhaps it's because the per-capita television-ownership is much lower there than in the west, and without TV, they haven't gotten the memo that they're supposed to be sick).