On Those Masks You Are Wearing (GO OUTSIDE, VERMONT)
April 23, 2020Is The “Nation State” Of California Seceding From The US Empire? (#CALEXIT)
April 26, 2020Publisher’s Note: In late March 2020, as most of the world entered “lockdown,” we published Part 1 of COVID EMPIRE entitled The 2020 “Coronavirus PLANdemic – Cui Bono/Who Benefits? And What Now?” Part 2: The 2020 “Coronavirus PLANdemic – Origins And Impacts” explores what we are learning about the historical origins and biological debates about the “coronavirus.” This article is not meant to be exhaustive or conclusive, but rather, provocative. We are asking questions here. Part 3: The 2020 “Coronavirus PLANdemic – Future Scenarios And #TeamHuman Strategies will be published in May.
As we finished this story on Friday, April 24th, 2020, THE HIGH WIRE’s Del Bigtree produced this weekly show entitled “The Lockdown Calamity” pulling together multiple COVID NATION stories in a compelling way with special guests. Good context for our story below.
The Naming
Names are important.
Begin with what to name this “coronavirus” Beast.
We place the term “coronavirus” in quotes to remind our readers that language is powerful, and language shapes our understanding and constructs our “reality.” And make no mistake, what we collectively name this thing – “corona virus” or “China flu” or “Wuhan virus” or “COVID 19” or _________ resonates and reverberates within our collective civilizational consciousness, and plays into how powerful “stakeholders” – corporations, States, NGOs – want us to think, feel, and act towards this Beast.
“COVID-19,” for example, might be a coded acronym for:
With this in mind, read on.
Historical Origins
Where did this “coronavirus” come from?
Snakes? Bats? Wuhan “wet markets”? Pangolins? Cross species “jump”?
Maybe.
Our research in conversation with our VI network indicates that the “coronavirus” most likely emerged from a set of joint US/Chinese virology / engineering experiments conducted at either the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the US virology lab at Fort Detrick, or perhaps both places. (UPDATE: June 2, 2020 Children’s Health Defense US/China viral labs update).
And – United States intelligence agencies were aware of the virus months before the general public.
In other words, the “coronavirus” afflicting humanity has been systematically genetically engineered by human lab scientists and engineers from the two most powerful countries in the world, and US intelligence either “let it happen on purpose” (LIHOP) or “made it happen on purpose” (MIHOP).
This article published April 17, 2020 explores the genetic evidence for this conclusion:
Researcher Josh Mittledorf tellingly writes on the politicization of scientific research, and the role of powerful players – corporations, governments and NGOs, in “buying” scientists, their research and their credibility:
We rely on the scientific community as a context for almost every public policy decision. People who want to influence policy know this, and they don’t just lobby Congress, they also buy scientists, scientific reporting, and placement in prominent journals. Most scientists are honest, but they have to survive in a world where funding is tighter than it should be. It’s not surprising that some of them succumb and publish what powerful and corrupt institutions want them to.
The question of a laboratory origin for COVID is politically explosive, so we expect a heavy hand restraining the science establishment. Those of us seeking an honest answer, who have a little expertise, a little horse sense, and a lot of patience, are left to sift through information, misinformation, and disinformation in a politicized environment.
On a related note, Dr. Anthony Fauci (we call him “Dr. WHO”) and the U.S. government’s National Institute for Health (NIH) appear to have been involved in funding through grantmaking the development of what has come to be called “coronavirus” in what are politely called “gain of function” experiments to create a “COVID pandemic superbug.” Robert F Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Defense Fund broke this story on April 15, 2020
Deep dive into the scientific details of this process here.
“Gain of function,” indeed. Wonderful phrase.
So benign. Maybe the term “weaponize” as applied to viruses is more accurate.
Here’s Nobel Prize winning French microbiologist Dr. Luc Montaigner putting all of this into context, based on his team’s close research of the genetic makeup of the “novel coronavirus.” Notice, too, his observations about “electromagnetic waves” towards the end of the interview. (Note: also a good opportunity to brush up on your French.)
And here’s Dr. Judy Mikovits and Dr. Rashid Buttar with a “deep dive” into the epidemiological and geopolitical ramifications of “gain of function” experiments – “taking viruses and “enhancing” them in labs for certain strategic and desired outcomes. Fascinating, and one of the many “untold stories” ignored by the COVID “official narrative.”
Back to “gain of function” and the engineered “weaponization” of viruses.
A single dot-connecting example.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has spent four decades immersed in the world of infectious diseases, and is closely connected – financially, professionally, politicially – to many of the US and the world’s biggest and most powerful government agencies, public health corporations, and global NGOs. He is also (in)famously associated with the AZT “AIDS” drug – worth a deep dive for research on your own.
Given the New Yorker’s April 2020 celebratory feature story re: Mr. Fauci here – “How Anthony Fauci Became America’s Doctor” – it might be helpful to loosely connect a few dots.
So – as explained above: Dr. Fauci and his NIH involve themselves beginning in 2002/2003 in joint US/China funding for “gain of function” experiments to create a “COVID pandemic superbug.” (NOTE: it would be helpful to know how much grant money the NIH has contributed to this process, and for how many years their involvement continues. Our guess is that, like many of these scientific endeavors, Fauci/NIH funding and participation is ongoing – but we have not seen definitive evidence for this yet).
Jump ahead to 2017. Shortly after Mr. Trump’s November 2016 election defeat ofHillary Clinton, Dr. Fauci predicts at a public health conference that “without a doubt,” we will see “some either ‘new’ (his air quotes, watch him closely) or reemerging infection” in the “next year, or two, or three, or four…”,” he says mysteriously, “it certainly will happen in this (Trump) administration, so we need to be prepared for it…”
Short video of Mr. Fauci and his remarks here – featuring what experienced gamblers call a “tell” :
We bring up Mr. Trump here, because the 2020 “coronavirus pandemic” Trump/Fauci show on television has been a constant source of tribalized speculation – with viewers already programmed by years of RED/BLUE Dem/Rep LEFT/RIGHT binary thinking claiming a side – “Trump is right! No, Fauci is right!” – rather than doing what we should ALL be doing – asking questions, doing research, and connecting dots.
Remember, as we reported in Part 1 of this 3 part series, at the end of October 2019, Mr. Fauci promoted the New York City Event 201 “global pandemic exercise” funded by and attended by, among other stakeholders, Bill Gates and John Hopkins University (the academic “go to source” for all coronavirus data)..
And of course, as we know, having helped fund the US/China “gain of function” experiments to create this “COVID pandemic superbug,” promoted well-funded “global pandemic exercises,” and predicted the imminent arrival in 2017 of a global pandemic, Dr. Fauci is now “fronting” the US national corona virus task force, parroting his funder Bill Gates’ oft-repeated line that “we will not return to normal” “until everyone on the Planet is vaccinated against the corona virus….”
Surely, this is not all just a big coincidence? Or, gasp, a “conspiracy theory”?
We leave it to readers to decide and continue their research.
And! Curious that in the above epic New Yorker Dr. Fauci feature story, NONE of these above details is even mentioned.
NOTE: to be clear, we are not trying to pick on Mr. Fauci exclusively here. We are simply providing a single example of historical dot connecting to make some observations about where, from whom, and why the “coronavirus” may have emerged.
Adding this mid-May 2020 UPDATE on whether or not the “coronavirus” was a “natural born killer” or was engineered in a lab – remarkable conversation with “JC On A Bike.”
Geopolitical and Biological Debates
Full disclosure. We here at Vermont Independent are environmental historians and reseachers, not biologists.
And! We also have contacts with many doctors, public health officials, geopolitical analysts, and smart independent-thinking citizens around the world.
Geopolitics first, and briefly, as this will be the primary focus of our Part 3.
Beyond establishing the COVID ORIGIN STORY (natural or engineered?), both the “coronavirus” data and the “official COVID narrative” can be controlled in five ways:
- Labeling the “coronavirus.”
- Diagnosing the “coronavirus.”
- Testing for the “coronavirus.”
- Counting cases of the “coronavirus” (including the “cause of death” for the deceased.)
- Measuring the amount of “coronavirus” currently in play in any given population and thus justifying effectiveness of the “lockdown.”
We’ll tie together all five below.
Consider COVID-19 as a “coded” cause of death, by way of a simple example.
Here are two doctors – Dr. Annie Bukacek of Montana and Dr. and State Senator Steve Jensen of Minnesota – explaining the unprecedented: COVID-19 is now being “coded” as the exclusive and only cause of death in US hospitals for newly deceased, even those who suffer from co-morbid symptoms. Financial incentives play a role, as Dr. Jensen explains, bit beyond this, why is the US Department of Health ordering doctors and hospitals to exclusively “COVID code” the deceased?
Here’s some context courtesy of New Eastern Outlook in mid-May 2020.
“A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private for-profit concerns, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.
Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that, “The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”
Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare. Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer, “Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.”
Little wonder that states such as Massachusetts suddenly began backdating cause of death totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed. …
Independent news sources are beginning to ask questions and connect dots – here’s Ben Swann on the “coronavirus” “death toll” numbers.
Having combed through hundreds of videos and research papers, here are a few that seem most worth considering in light of this “coronavirus” Beast.
We’re all too well familiar with the official “coronavirus” narrative: this is a contagious novel (new) virus that must be stopped through flattening the curve, “social distancing,” closing of ALL schools, businesses and every other human institution deemed “nonessential,” and “shelter at home” orders (aka “lockdown“) indefinitely.
And – the global scientific community has other vitally important if dramatically underreported insights to share.
As a reminder, we ‘ve already provided a book review of scientist and researcher Arthur Firstenberg’s new Vermont Chelsea Green published book Invisible Rainbow: A History Of Electricity And Life (2020).
Interestingly, when you search for this book and our review title, Google provides “helpful coronavirus FAQs” as part of your search, which, of course, work to reinforce the “official narrative.”
Back to the show.
The doctor who first pointed us to Firstenberg’s book, Dr. Thomas Cowan, gave the following remarks in February 2020 at the end of his prepared talk at the Health And Human Rights Summit in Tucson, Arizona on March 12, 2020.
Curiously, YouTube (owned by Google, which is owned by Alphabet) removed Cowan’s video for “violating community guidelines.” Fortunately, we had a colleague in Greece transcribe Dr. Cowan’s remarks, which we provide for you below.
Here is Dr. Thomas Cowan in February 2020:
Now, I have ten minutes. I wasn’t sure I was going to get to this stage, but I can’t help but say something about this whole Corona virus thing, if you want me to.
Audience applause.
So, again, when you know [Rudolph] Steiner. you have the answers to the test but you have to then figure out the details. In 1918 after the biggest pandemic, the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, Steiner was asked what was all this about. And he said, “Well, viruses are simply excretions of a toxic cell. Viruses are pieces of DNA or RNA with a few other proteins they brought out from the cell. They happen when the cell is poisoned. They are not the cause of anything.”
And the first way I would encourage you to think about this is, if you were a famous dolphin doctor, right, and you’d been studying dolphins in the Arctic Circle for hundreds of years. Or at least, a long time. And the dolphins were fine.
And then they call you up: “Fred, all the dolphins, or a lot of the dolphins are dying in the Arctic Circle. Can you come and investigate?”
Right? And you have one question to ask.
So, show of hands. (asking the audience).
How many of you would say: “I want to investigate a dolphin to see the genetic makeup of that dolphin.”
Nobody. That’s stupid.
How many of you would say: “I want to see if this dolphin and that dolphin has a virus because it might be contagious and that’s why all these dolphins are getting sick.”
That one fellow there. (pointing to an audience member).
How many of you would say (excuse my French here): “Somebody put some shit in the water here?” Like EXXON Valdez?
Anybody? (Most audience members raise their hands).
Everybody.
Because that’s what happened. And the cells get poisoned.
They (cells) try to purify themselves by excreting debris, which we call viruses. If you go to the current theory of viruses called exosomes and the latest head of the NIH (National Institute of Health) giving a talk on the complexity of viruses you will see this is perfectly in line with the current thinking on what a virus really is.
I had a dramatic example of this when I was growing up.
Right outside our house there was a wetland. And it was full of frogs and the frogs kept me up at night so I taped the windows and……in the spring they made a big racket.
And then over time the frogs were all gone.
How many think the frogs had a genetic disease?
How many think the frogs had a virus?
How many think somebody put DDT into the water?
That’s what happened.
Diseases are poisoning.
It’s one of the reasons why vaccines….so. I’m going to skip that for a minute.
So what happened in 1918? (Referencing the “Spanish Flu.”)
There was a huge pandemic – and every pandemic in the last 150 years there was a quantum leap in the electrification of the earth.
In 1918, late fall of 1917, there was the introduction of radio waves around the world.
Whenever you expose any biological system to a new electromagnetic field you poison it, you kill some and the rest go into a kind of suspended animation so that interestingly they live a little bit longer and sicker.
And then, starting in World War II, the next pandemic arrives with the introduction of radar equipment all over the earth, blanketing the entire earth in radar fields.
First time humans have ever been exposed to that.
In 1968, there was the Hong Kong Flu and it was the first time – the Earth has a protective layer, the Van Allen belt, which essentially integrates the cosmic field from the Sun and the earth and the moon and Jupiter, etc. Integrates that and essentially distributes that to the living beings of the earth.
And we put satellites emitting radioactive frequencies in the Van Allen belt. Within six months we had a new viral pandemic.
Why viral? Because the people are poisoned. They excrete toxins. They look like viruses.
People think it’s a flu epidemic.
In the 1918 epidemic, the Boston Health Department decided to investigate the contagiousness of this. So they, believe or not, took hundreds of people with the flu, and they sucked the snot out of their nose and injected it into the healthy people who didn’t have the flu, and not one time could they make the next person sick.
They did this over and over again.
And they were not able to demonstrate contagion.
They even did it with horses, who apparently got the Spanish flu.
They put bags over their head and the horses sneezed in the bag and they put the bag over the next horse and not one horse got sick.
You can read about this in a book called The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg, who chronicles all the steps in the electrification of the earth and how within six months there was a new flu pandemic all over the world.
And when you hear that normal explanations….how did it go from Kansas to South Africa in two weeks so the entire world got the symptoms at the same time, in spite of the fact that the mode of transportation was horseback and boats and there’s no explanation for it.
They just say: “We don’t know how that happened.”
But when you think about it, with these radio waves and other frequencies that some of you have in your pocket and on your wrist, you can send a signal to Japan and it arrives instantaneously.
So, any of you who don’t believe there is an electromagnetic field that communicates globally within seconds, is not paying attention to this.
And I will only finish by pointing out that there has been a dramatic and quantum leap in the last six months with the electrification of the Earth. And I’m sure a lot of you know what that is, it’s called 5G, where they now have 20,000 radiation-emitting satellites, just like the radiation-emitting thing in your pocket or on your wrist that you use all the time.
This is not compatible with health. I’m sorry to say it. It’s not compatible with health.
These (mobile phones) are a water-destructuring devices.
And for any of you who say: “Yeah, well we’re not electrical beings. We’re just physical matter”?
Well then, don’t bother doing an EKG or an EEG or a nerve conduction test because we ARE electrical beings, and the chemicals are only the by-product of those electrical impulses.
And I’ll finish with anybody want to make one guess as to where the first completely blanketed 5G city in the world was.
(Wuhan, audience says)
Exactly.
So when you start thinking about this, we are in an existential crisis here, folks, the likes of which humankind has never seen.
And I don’t want to go old testament prophet on you, but this is something that is unprecedented.
The putting of 100,000 satellites in the very blanket of the Earth…
And by the way, as I was going to say earlier, this actually has something to do with the vaccine question.
This got brought home to me because about a year ago or so I had a patient who came in who was totally fine, a surfer and all and then he broke a….. he works as an electrician putting in WiFi systems for very wealthy people.
Electricians have a very high mortality rate but he was fine.
And then this surfer breaks his arm and he gets a metal plate put in his arm.
Three months later, he couldn’t get out of bed and he was total, you know, heart irregularities, just total collapse.
The susceptibility has to do with how much metal you have in your body as well as the quality of the water in your cells.
So, if you start injecting aluminum in people they become receptors for absorbing increased electromagnetic field.
This is a perfect storm for the kind of deterioration of the species which is what we’re now experiencing.
And I’m just going to finish with one more thing that I like.
It’s a quote from Rudolf Steiner, and by the way, this was around 1917.
So it was a different time.
“In times when there were no electrical currents, when the air was not swarming with electrical influences (we’re talking 1917), it was easier to be human,” Steiner observed in 1917. “For this reason, in order to be human at all today it is necessary to expend much stronger spiritual capacities than was necessary a century ago.”
So, I’ll just leave you with whatever you can do to increase your spiritual capacities, because it’s really damned hard to be a human being these days.
Thanks for listening.
Takeaways?
- “Pandemics” have accompanied every major modern global electromagnetic technological rollout;
- Viruses like influenza (and “corona”?) are not “contagious” (the “germ theory” is inaccurate when it comes to viruses); and
- We 21st century humans are living in a more toxic electromagnetic environment than ever before.
Dr. Cowan also pointed us to this YouTube talk by Dr. Andrew Kaufman.
In case it is removed by YouTube (owned by Google owned by Alphabet) for “violating community guidelines,” here is quick summary.
Kaufman’s thesis?
“Coronavirus” is a tragicomedy of errors, because:
1) There’s no gold standard test for “coronavirus,” therefore there is no scientifically reliable evidence for the existence of a novel virus.
2) The official test for the nevertheless posited novel virus, tests for genetic (RNA) material also found in exosomes, not for any virus. Exosomes are toxin-combatting mechanisms that are part of the body’s natural immune defense system, and our bodies release exosomes in response to toxicity, illness, injury and stress.
3) The “coronavirus” “test” itself, such as it is, gives an 80% false positives result.
4) Despite this deeply problematic test, the flawed positive result cases and attributed deaths statistics for this non-proven virus are manipulated and artificially biased upwards to the extent of being declared a “pandemic” and to the extent that anyone expiring from any lung-related condition being counted as having died from the effect of this “novel corona virus.” (Note: we already established dramatically OVERINFLATED COVID modeling numbers and exclusive “COVID coding” of US deceased despite the presence of “co-morbidity” in Part 1 of our COVID NATION series.)
5) A vaccine for respiratory illness allegedly caused by the “coronavirus” – a “virus” that has no scientific basis for its existence – is now being proposed by Bill “Dr VAX” Gates.
6) Vaccines in and of themselves have historically no scientific gold-standard evidence base as being effective in preventing disease. (Note for biologically minded readers: search RCS = recombinant genetic strains)
For biology geeks who are reading, one more video featuring two researchers discussing the similarities and differences among exosomes and “coronavirus”:
Background: Jan Lötvall invites Ken Witwer to discuss the overlap between extracellular vesicles (EV) and virus. Specifically, they discuss the way by which enveloped viruses use the host membranes to produce virions (the virus particle). DISCLAIMER: Nothing said in this vlog-podcast should be considered to be final scientific facts, as they primarily introduce hypotheses and thoughts about the topic, even though these are educated scientists. They also have a discussion how EVs could be involved in the disease, and how EVs from different sources could be utilized as therapeutics. Importantly, all of these comments are speculations, and do not convey any recommendation. All therapies to be tested in COVID-19 should undergo proper processes and approvals before being tested in patients.
Three key takeaways:
Ken (29 min) – “If we want to be very reductionist about it, we could say that the “coronavirus” is an extra-ceullular vesicle (EV = exosome), but we have to be careful to make the distinction of the bio-genesis being directed by something else, other than the normal EV generation pathways of exosomes and ectosomes. Yes, in this case, those pathways are being used. But there is an evil genius behind the scenes, that’s supplying some of the components to make this thing infectious and pathogenic.
Ken (41 min) So much that we still don’t know. But what we know enough now to speculate and be on fairly good ground now that the exosomes (EVs) are somehow contributing to this disease and that we can use exosomes (EVs) to combat it. Prevent it, even.
Both (near the end): “Coronavirus” and Exosomes are both vesicular structures, both the same size, exosomes can vary much more in size than “coronavirus,” and “coronavirus” is infectious and can spread in the body and can cause disease, while exosomes are part of our normal physiology: they are anti-inflammatory, they can help resolve and mediate inflammation, depending on which cell they come from and which state that cell is in, they can have totally different functions.” In some pathologies, EVs carry cytokines, and EVs can contribute to a cytokine storm that can be so damaging an infection, but normally EVs are part of a healthy physiology.”
Testing
How do we “test” for “coronavirus”?
Begin with Koch’s Postulates – four criteria “to identify the causative agent of an infectious disease” universally agreed-upon as the “gold standard” by experts, and NONE of which have been applied to identifying the “coronavirus.”
This lack of applying Koch’s Postulates seems a big “red flag” when it comes to diagnosing, testing, counting and testing “coronavirus” cases.
Nevertheless, here’s what we know.
First, an exhaustive Scientific American overview of “coronavirus testing” via what has become the dominant form of US testing – the WHO / CDC green-lighted RT-PCR test.
South Korea made global headlines early on in the “global coronavirus pandemic” with its aggressive testing for “coronavirus” – temperature checking and swabbing nasal and throat passages, and is now in mid April 2020 making global headlines again for “coronavirus comeback.” Here’s the Wall Street Journal.
Let’s dig a bit deeper.
A second way to TEST is take a blood sample and measure an individual’s antibodies to the “coronavirus.”
Breaking news – as of mid-April 2020, the first results of antibody testing shows happy results, according to US journalist Sharyl Attkisson.
Key takeaways from this story:
The first early results are in from coronavirus antibody testing in a general population: Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2) is much more widespread than positive tests indicate.
The goal of the study is to find out how prevalent Covid-19 has been beyond those who have tested positive. Many Americans have had the disease in the recent past but had few or no symptoms. They are believed to be largely immune from a repeat infection, or from infecting anybody else.
Knowing how many truly had “coronavirus” will allow scientists to calculate the first accurate death rate.
Until now, the publicized mortality rates have been skewed higher than it really is because officials have only counted deaths among those who tested positive. A more accurate number will come from calculating deaths among everybody who had “coronavirus,” including those who were never diagnosed with it.
And here’s NATURE’s analysis of the same results.
Touted as society’s way out of widespread lockdowns, scientists say the true potential of these rapidly-developed antibody tests is still unknown.
Widespread antibody testing in a Californian county has revealed a much higher prevalence of coronavirus infection than official figures suggested. The findings also indicate that the virus is less deadly than current estimates of global case and death counts suggest. But some scientists have raised concerns about the accuracy of kits used in such studies because most have not been rigorously assessed to confirm they are reliable.
An analysis of the blood of some 3,300 people living in Santa Clara county in early April found that one in every 66 people had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. On the basis of that finding, the researchers estimate that between 48,000 and 82,000 of the county’s roughly 2 million inhabitants were infected with the virus at that time — numbers that contrast sharply with the official case count of some 1,000 people reported in early April, according to the analysis posted today on medRxiv. The work has not yet been peer reviewed.
Antibody testing brings seemingly good news – coronavirus” arrived more early and has “infected” more people than initially believed, which means 1) more people than we anticipated are developing antibodies and immunity to “coronavirus,” and 2) the impact of “coronavirus” is less severe than previously believed.
Hooray!
But to REALLY make sense of “coronavirus” testing moving forward, we gotta go PCR.
Our #3 TESTING option.
The PCR test, that is, which stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction.
Meet the scientist who invented the PCR test.
His name was Kary Mullis, known in scientific circles as a “rebel genius.”
This article below, researched by Celia Farber, provides vital background on Kary Mullis, the history and scientific debates behind the PCR test, and how PCR has been “weaponized” against #TeamHuman now that it has become THE TEST for the “coronavirus.”
We’re going to quote from this article at length below.
Our colleague Mark Crispin Miller at NYU stated via email that this may be the single most important piece of journalism for understanding the true nature of the “coronavirus” in both geopolitical and public health contexts.
First, here’s journalist Celia Farber’s biographical background.
Celia Farber is half Swedish, raised there, so she knows “socialism” from the inside. She has focused her writings on freedom and tyranny, with an early focus on the pharmaceutical industry and media abuses on human liberties. She has been under ferocious attack for her writings on HIV/AIDS, where she has worked to document the topic as a psychological operation, and rooted in fake science. She is a contributor to UncoverDC and The Epoch Times, and has in the past written for Harper’s, Esquire, Rolling Stone and more. Having been gravely injured in legacy media, she never wants to go back. She is the recipient of the Semmelweis International Society Clean Hands Award For Investigative Journalism, and was under such attack for her work, she briefly sought protection from the FBI and NYPD. She is the author of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS,” and the editor of The Truth Barrier, an investigative and literary website. She co-hosts “The Whistleblower Newsroom” with Kristina Borjesson on PRN, Fridays at 10am.
Plus, she’s a brilliant researcher and wonderful writer.
The title of her April 7, 2020 article on Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technology now being used to “test for coronavirus?
This article is as mesmerizing and revealing as Arthur Firstenberg’s book Invisible Rainbow.
Here we go.
And THANK YOU, Celia Farber.
Read on:
What do we mean when we say a person “tests positive” for Covid-19?
We don’t actually mean they have been found to “have” it.
We’ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean.
In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR (Poymerase Chain Reaction.)
His name was Kary B. Mullis, and he was one of the warmest, funniest, most eclectic-minded people I ever met, in addition to being a staunch critic of HIV “science,” and an unlikely Nobel Laureate, i.e. a “genius.”
One time, in 1994, when I called to talk to him about how PCR was being weaponized to “prove,” almost a decade after it was asserted, that HIV caused AIDS, he actually came to tears.
The people who have taken all your freedoms away in recent weeks (of 2020), they’re social engineers, politicians, globalist thought leaders, bankers, WHO fanatics, and the like. Their army is composed of “mainstream media,” which is now literally a round-the-clock perfect propaganda machine for the Gates-led Pandemic Reich.
Kary Mullis was a scientist.
He never spoke like a globalist, and said once, memorably, when accused of making statements about HIV that could endanger lives: “I’m a scientist. I’m not a lifeguard.”
That’s a very important line in the sand.
Somebody who goes around claiming they are “saving lives” is a very dangerous animal, and you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them. Their weapon is fear, and their favorite word is “could.” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt, creating simulations of every imaginable thing that “could” happen, yet hasn’t. Bill Gates has been waiting a long time for a virus with this much, as he put it, “pandemic potential.” But Gates has a problem, and it’s called PCR.
Of Mullis’ invention, Polymerase Chain Reaction, the London Observer wrote:
“Not since James Watt walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an inspiration that set loose the industrial revolution, has a single, momentous idea been so well recorded in time and place.”
What does HIV have to do with Covid-19?
PCR played a central role in the HIV war (a war you don’t know about, that lasted 22 years, between Globalist post-modern HIV scientists and classical scientists.) The latter lost the war. Unless you count being correct as winning. The relentless violence finally silenced the opposition, and it seemed nobody would ever learn who these scientists were, or why they fought this thing so adamantly and passionately.
And PCR, though its inventor died last year, and isn’t here to address it, plays a central role in Corona terrorism.
Here is an outtake from an article I (Ms. Farber) published in SPIN, in 1994, about Kary Mullis, PCR, HIV and…Tony Fauci:
“PCR has also had a great impact on the field of AIDS, or rather, HIV research. PCR can, among other things, detect HIV in people who test negative to the HIV antibody test.
The word “eccentric” seems to come up often in connection with Mullis’ name: His first published scientific paper, in the premier scientific journal Nature in 1986, described how he viewed the universe while on LSD – pocked with black holes containing antimatter, for which time runs backward. He has been known to show photographs of nude girlfriends during his lectures, their bodies traced with Mandelbrot fractal patterns. And as a side project, he is developing a company which sells lockets containing the DNA of rock stars. But it is his views on AIDS that have really set the scientific establishment fuming.
Mullis, like his friend and colleague Dr. Peter Duesberg, does not believe that AIDS is caused by the retrovirus HIV. He is a long-standing member of the Group for the Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, the 500-member protest organization pushing for a re-examination of the cause of AIDS.
One of Duesberg’s strongest arguments in the debate has been that the HIV virus is barely detectable in people who suffer from AIDS. Ironically, when PCR was applied to HIV research, around 1989, researchers claimed to have put this complaint to rest. Using the new technology, they were suddenly able to see viral particles in the quantities they couldn’t see before. Scientific articles poured forth stating that HIV was now 100 times more prevalent than was previously thought. But Mullis himself was unimpressed. “PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV,” he told Spin in 1992, “and some of those people came down with symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn’t begin even to answer the question, ‘Does HIV cause it?’”
Mullis then went on to echo one of Duesberg’s most controversial claims. “Human beings are full of retroviruses,” he said, “We don’t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We’ve only recently started to look for them. But they’ve never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses.”
Mullis challenged the popular wisdom that the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply too “mysterious” to comprehend. “The mystery of that damn virus,” he said at the time, “has been generated by the $2 billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries about I,t too.”
Like so many great scientific discoveries, the idea for PCR came suddenly, as if by direct transmission from another realm. It was during a late-night drive in 1984, the same year, ironically, that HIV was announced to be the “probable” cause of AIDS.
“I was just driving and thinking about ideas and suddenly I saw it,” Mullis recalls. “I saw the polymerase chain reaction as clear as if it were up on a blackboard in my head, so I pulled over and started scribbling.” A chemist friend of his was asleep in the car, and, as Mullis described in a recent special edition of Scientific American: “Jennifer objected groggily to the delay and the light, but I exclaimed I had discovered something fantastic. Unimpressed, she went back to sleep.”
Mullis kept scribbling calculations, right there in the car, until the formula for DNA amplification was complete. The calculation was based on the concept of “reiterative exponential growth processes,” which Mullis had picked up from working with computer programs. After much table-pounding, he convinced the small California biotech company he was working for, Cetus, that he was on to something. Good thing they finally listened: They sold the patent for PCR to Hoffman-LaRoche for the staggering sum of $300 million – the most money ever paid for a patent. Mullis meanwhile received a $10,000 bonus.
Mullis’s mother reports that as a child, her lively son got into all kinds of trouble – shutting down the house’s electricity, building rockets, and blasting small frogs hundreds of feet into the air. These days, he likes to surf, rollerblade, take pictures, party with his friends – most of whom are not scientists – and above all, he loves to write.
Mullis is notoriously difficult to track down and interview. I had left several messages on his answering machine at home but had gotten no response. Finally, I called him in the late evening, and he picked up, in the middle of bidding farewell to some dinner guests. He insisted he would not give me an interview, but after a while, a conversation was underway, and I asked if I couldn’t just please turn my tape recorder on. “Oh, what the hell,” he gruffed. “Turn the fucker on.”
Our talk focused on AIDS. Though Mullis has not been particularly vocal about his HIV skepticism, his convictions have not, to his credit, been muddled or softened by his recent success and mainstream acceptability. He seems to revel in his newly acquired power. “They can’t pooh-pooh me now, because of who I am,” he says with a chuckle – and by all accounts, he’s using that power effectively.
When ABC’s “Nightline” approached Mullis about participating in a documentary on himself, he instead urged them to focus their attention on the HIV debate. “That’s a much more important story,” he told the producers, who up to that point had never acknowledged the controversy. In the end, “Nightline” ran a two-part series, the first on Kary Mullis, the second on the HIV debate. Mullis was hired by ABC for a two-week period, to act as their scientific consultant and direct them to sources.
The show was superb, and represented a historic turning point, possibly even the end of the seven-year media blackout on the HIV debate. But it still didn’t fulfill Mullis’ ultimate fantasy. “What ABC needs to do,” says Mullis, “is talk to [Chairman of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Robert] Gallo
But I point out, Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he’s always done.
“I know he will,” Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice. “But you know what? I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say, ‘This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,’ and let the cameras follow. If people think I’m a crazy person, that’s okay. But here’s a Nobel Prize winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV. It’s a visual thing. I’m not unwilling to do something like that.”
He pauses, then continues. “And I don’t care about making an ass of myself because most people realize I am one.”
While many people, even within the ranks of the HIV dissidents, have of late tried to distance themselves from the controversial Duesberg, Mullis defends him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate. “I was trying to stress this point to the ABC people,” he says, “that Peter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the point where he can’t even do any research. Not only that, but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards. There ought to be some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say, ‘Well, we’ll move in where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] dropped off. We’ll take care of it. You just keep right on saying what you’re saying, Peter. We think you’re an asshole, and we think you are wrong, but you’re the only dissenter, and we need one, because it’s science, it’s not religion.’ And that was one of the reasons why I cooperated with ABC.”
“I am waiting to be convinced that we’re wrong,” Mullis continues. “I know it ain’t going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much – I will be the first person to admit it. A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together, that will show how this works.
Like, ‘What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induces this one’ – that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind.
People who sit there and talk about it don’t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so. You don’t need to look that far. You don’t discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things. You just look at what the hell is going on.
Well, here’s a bunch of people that are practicing a new set of behavioral norms. Apparently, it didn’t work because a lot of them got sick. That’s the conclusion. You don’t necessarily know why it happened. But you start there.”
Link to Farber’s 1994 Spin article.
That was a historical detour, shared in hopes of rooting this conversation historically.
When you see the word “cases” on your TV screen, in this world that has now been hijacked by one single event, one dread, one Idol, you will be forgiven for thinking those are cases of Covid-19.
The number of “cases” is often a very big number, back-lit in red. Today (April 7, 2020) for example, the number of “total cases,” in the US, according to Worldometer, is 309,728. The total death figure is 8,441. “Active cases,” is 286,546, of which 8,206 are “Serious, Critical.” The number of “new deaths” is 1,037, and the number of “total recovered” is 14,741.
I’m not clear what an “active” case is. Does that mean fully symptomatic? Partially symptomatic? If the latter, it surely encompasses influenza/pneumonia, which has magically, as many have observed, dropped off a cliff for 2020.
In China, generally, they diagnose ‘corona’ with CT scans and one or two positive PCR tests. In the US, it’s difficult to find out what makes a “case,” i.e. what the case definition is. Absent CT scans, we are in a biotech free fall. One website offers this distressingly unclear definition: “The novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, has been spreading worldwide, resulting in growing numbers of infected individuals since late 2019 and increased mortality numbers since early 2020. So far, experts have seen that while there are severe cases, the infection is usually mild with non-specific symptoms. And there are no trademark clinical features of COVID-19 infection.”
There are no trademark clinical features?
What then, collapsed the world?
I sure hope this isn’t all riding on a “test,” as bio-tech Oracle.
A few graphs down, my fears are confirmed: “Diagnosis of COVID-19 involves laboratory tests. Once someone has been diagnosed with the coronavirus, additional diagnostic tests may be done to determine the severity of the infection.”
I accept that “something is going on” that overlaps with flu, but reportedly worse than a normal flu. That’s what we’re hearing. It involves an acute lack of oxygen, for reasons unclear. People can’t breathe. Intubation is a serious, potentially dangerous procedure that begs many questions—but that’s for a future article.
What is the relationship between the spread of testing and the “spread” of a new virus?
How do we know what we are experiencing, in comparison to what we are assuming we are experiencing?
One study in Austria found that increased testing correlated with, no surprise, increased “cases.”
In an email discussion between a group of international scientists, academics and MDs, the question was posed whether the daily number of new cases would track with the daily number of tests.
“Yes, they do,” wrote Austrian MD Christian Fiala. “Here are the data from Austria. In other words if they want to further increase the number of ‘infected‘ people, they have to also increase the number of tests. However, that is physically impossible.
Another aspect: during the first weeks, most tests were done on sick people. Therefore, the percentage of positive tests was relatively high. But there are not so many sick people and with the general roll out of tests, the vast majority of those tested will be healthy. Consequently, the percentage of positive tests will be low, and most will be false positive.
In other words, it is impossible to continue the increase of positive test results.”
In the US, we have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine. This has been going on for a long time and is a dangerous turning.
The “Corona test” is named with characteristic tech-tedium: “CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.”
That means it is a needle in a DNA haystack test.
A PCR test.
It finds fragments, nucleic acids. From an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “
If things were done right, “infection” would be a far cry from a positive PCR test.
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me. “You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”
I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19. “Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”
One of the countless head-spinning mysteries of this whole Corona Situation has been the advent of famous people, from Tom Hanks and his wife, to Sophie Trudeau, to Prince Charles announcing they had “tested positive” for COVID-19 and were self-quarantining.
In all these famous “powerful people” cases, the symptoms were either non-existent or mild.
Why, one wondered, did they make such hay about it?
The British Royals, especially, seemed to contradict their ethos of secrecy in this case.
So what did it mean?
It signaled, if anything, that COVID-19 is not all that deadly. That the virus can be present without causing the disease. That host factors matter. And that being “positive” for COVID-19 is neither a PR death sentence nor an actual death sentence. Maybe in their elite and esoteric language, it means some kind of prestige, or sacrament to a Pagan Virus Deity.
Who knows?
In the case of the Trudeau, Sophie tested positive, and had symptoms, while her husband Justin, the Prime Minister, never got sick, and was never tested. (He didn’t want to appear privileged; not everybody can get tested in Canada, you must have symptoms.)
We do live now in a world dominated by a Corona virus, as my friend Kevin Corbett, a retired nurse in the UK puts it, “with knobs on it.” Shrek-Green is the color that was chosen. We’re lost in a simulation, seeking to grab hold of “truth” and reality. One way that I do that is to grab hold of words, slow them down, and analyze them. Globalists love to weaponize words and make spells out of them. Hypnotics. To this end, they invent new words, and force you to use them and live them. Words like “Corona Virus,” and “Social Distancing.” “COVID-19.” “Tested Positive.”
Whether we realize it or not, this phrase is an echo of HIV-think, which I swam through for most of my so-called career in journalism, choking and spitting all the way out. The globalists write code. They encode “viruses” and give them a weaponized, video-game identity. In this video game, you lose all your freedoms, and must display gratitude and servitude. Viral code trumps all other forms of politics. Nothing can counter it. Especially not “science.” The virus is also a sweeping metaphor for the spread of “misinformation,” which means anything outside their religious doctrines, not recognizable by classical virology.
The code, the potential scenarios, the mysticism and superstition about how the virus spreads, must not be questioned, if you wish to remain a person, as opposed to an un-person. It’s a form of post-globalist environmental socialism gone malignant: Demand that all people submit to an equal chance to be killed by a virus. Act out the theatrics of worshiping the virus with fear as the measure of inverted faith. This is why celebrities love this kind of thing. It gives them a chance to debase themselves, to self-flagellate as fellow sufferers.
As I write this, from my window in New York City, at 7:00 pm every evening, people are heard hollering, clapping, and blowing horns from their windows, to show solidarity to the health care workers on the front lines.
Was any such thing ever devised for the mass deaths from opioids?
No, they weren’t significant deaths for the global elites.
It’s not “death,” this play is about. It’s socialist contagion theology.
You can’t go to the grocery store without encountering new displays of “Corona Heroica.”
Only viruses interest these people, these haters of liberty.
Yet they refuse to learn the first thing about the natural life of viruses and humans.
If they did peer into this world, they would find beauty, truth, and wonder.
They would find that viruses are rarely deadly, always misunderstood, and actually trying to protect us.
The reason the globalists are obsessed with “spread” and “viruses” is because they want to shut down all forms of communication and information exchange that threatens their New World Order.
“Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us,” says David Rasnick. “They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
Technocracy
In HIV, the death spell (code) came to people in the form of two antibody tests called ELISA and Western Blot, initially. Not PCR tests—they came later, to measure “viral load,” and were specifically not to be used for diagnosing HIV. Rather, to stress people out about their “surrogate markers,” said to represent where they stood in their battle against HIV. (Did people really need to be in a “battle” against HIV? This was the trillion-dollar question.)
In any case, those tests were not built on a “gold standard” which means purification of an actual virus. Purification means the pathogen has been separated from all else. HIV co-discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier famously told journalist Djamel Tahi in an interview: “I repeat, we did not purify.”
HIV was never “separated from everything else.” It was and is a laboratory artifact, a set of lab-tortured antigens around which a “test” was built—a test which shattered countless millions of lives, because people watched TV and believed what they were told. They didn’t get a chance to hear what Kary Mullis or dozens of other real scientists had to say about the supposedly deadly retrovirus, HIV.
Nothing was proven before it was asserted. This became the norm, paving the way for the situation we are in now.
Global viral communism.
We all dreaded this would happen, but we never dreamed they would choose a cold virus.
A Corona virus.
In the early 1990’s, PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. As it correctly says on PCR’s Wikipedia page, PCR is an “indispensable technique” with a “broad variety” of applications, “including biomedical research and criminal forensics.” [Italics mine.] The page goes on to say, to my dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is “for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
PCR is a needle in a haystack technology that can be extremely misleading in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” The first conflict between this revolutionary technology and human life happened on the battlefield of AIDS, and Mullis himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as diagnostic tool. In 1987, esteemed Berkeley cancer virologist Peter Duesberg had doomed his funding and “career” by issuing a broadside in a paper published in Cancer Researchto the growing and promiscuous assertions made for cancer viruses, including at least one he stood to gain a Nobel Prize for had he not diffused its significance himself.
His main argument was that the Gallo/Montagnier fusion “virus” that came to be called ‘HIV’ was (like all viruses in its class) barely capable of infecting cells. It infected so few cells that Duesberg likened the pathogenic model to thinking you can conquer China by killing 3 soldiers a day. There was simply not enough “there-there” in the form of cell death. “It’s a pussycat,” he said. He even said he wouldn’t mind being injected with it. (though not if it came from Gallo’s lab.)
With PCR’s rise, the HIV Industrial Complex weaponized it to assert thatnowthey could see HIV more abundantly, hence their maligned foe Peter Duesberg was toast. And it was Kary Mullis, himself an HIV dissenter, who rose to Duesberg’s defense and said, “No he isn’t.”
I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe – Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Mythpodcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”
The next part of his explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let’s push through:
“What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
“Wow,” I said. “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab.
The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five.
The lowest was Africa: 2.
In the US it is generally 3-4.
We used to joke that you could rid yourself of an “HIV diagnosis” by flying from either the US or Australia, to Africa. But for many years, “AIDS” in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has.
Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by 37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down.
But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. And yet I could. Have you ever tried to read the package insert for a “Corona” PCR test? You begin to feel after a while that the technobabble is some kind of spell, or bad dream. An alien language from another dimension, that could not possibly—whatever else it may do—help a single human being have a better life. It’s not “English.” I don’t know what it is.
“I’ve been quoting Alice in Wonderland a lot recently,” David says, “because it’s the only way I can wrap my head around it. Alice said: “Sometimes I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!”
One of the ways to distinguish truth from deception in contemporary “science” is to track what gets removed. For example, David tells me, there was apparently an English abstract online at PubMed out of China that rendered the entire COVID testing industrial complex baseless and absurd.
“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive. That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
“Doesn’t that mean the test means nothing?” I asked.
“The Chinese analysis was a mathematical analysis, a standard, the standard analysis that’s been done a million times before. There’s no reason to withdraw the paper for any reason. There’s nothing dramatic about the paper. It’s a really boring analysis. It’s just that they did the standard analysis and said, in some populations, like they estimated 1% of people are actually infected in the population. You could have 80% false positive. Uh, they couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus. So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
Dave Rasnick has had exchanges with David Crowe about this, and concurs, “To my knowledge, they have not yet purified this virus.”
In a previous interview I did with him a few weeks ago, he said this, about PCR tests and the fallacies of thinking less is more, or smaller is better, or more “sensitive” means more accurate:
“It’s like fingerprints. With PCR you’re only looking at a small number of nucleotide. You’re looking at a tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint. When you have regular human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation. There are parts that are common to almost all fingerprints, and it’s those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up. They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus. They will still show up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold.”
“The primers are what you know. We already know the strings of RNA for the Corona family, the regions that are stable. That’s at one end. Then you look at the other end of the region, for all Corona viruses. The Chinese decided that there was a region in those stable areas that was unique to their Corona virus. You do PCR to see if that is true. If it is truly unique it would work. But they’re using the SARS test because they don’t really have one for the new virus.”
“SARS isn’t the virus that stopped the world,” I offer.
“That’s right.”
“PCR for diagnosis is a big problem,” he continues. “When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”
Crowe described a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case. “She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”
“Now why was she important? Well there was only one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they thought it was. But secondly, she had the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right? So, four people in his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those symptoms without the virus, then you, you’ve got to say, well, why couldn’t everybody else’s symptoms be explained by whatever she had? I mean, maybe they, they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick, but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus. But because three out of the four, tested positive, then they were, they were all considered infected and out of the same paper.
Another interesting thing is that they did a lot of tests. The first person in the list of people tested, he was positive on three out of 11 tests. So again, they took nose and throat samples and you know, different methods and all this kind of stuff. And they got 11 separate tests and only three were positive. And of course, all you need to be considered infected is one positive test. They could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then you’re infected. So, a positive test is meaningful. A negative test. It’s like, eh. Not so much.”
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
Our conversation went in many different directions and I plan to publish the entire audio interview. I asked David what he thought was happening here, at the most core level.
“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing,” he said. “I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.”
“I just want to identify who sponsored that simulation conference, 6 weeks before the first news broke out of Wuhan,” I interjected. “It was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Johns Hopkins Center For Health Security, and the World Economic Forum. Incidentally, all the stats, projections and modeling you see in the media are coming out of Johns Hopkins.”
“Right. So, this beautiful pandemic machine is a lot like…let’s use an example of an aircraft simulator. Okay. So, so pilots are tested on an aircraft simulator. So if you’re flying along in an airplane and there’s a loud bang and you see smoke coming from an engine on the right hand side, this is probably the first time a pilot has ever been in an airplane that had an engine failure. But he’s tested this scenario 25 times on an aircraft simulator. So, he knows exactly what to do without being told. He goes through the procedure. He doesn’t have to think, he just does the steps that he’s been taught through the, the aircraft simulator and he successfully lands the airplane with one engine. So, a pandemic simulator is just like that. You sit down at the computer, you see the virus going around the world, um, and you say, okay, so what we need to do is we need to dress everybody in protective clothing.”
“We need to quarantine everybody who’s positive. Next step. We need to do social isolation. It’s a mathematical model. And at the end you always win, right? So, in the end, the good guys win, and the pandemic is defeated. But there’s, there’s never been like an actual real pandemic since they built this machine. So, there’s this huge machine, it’s got a red button on it and it’s like if you ever detect a pandemic starting, you press the red button. We don’t know exactly what happened, but I think the Chinese government was embarrassed cause they were being accused of covering up a pandemic. They said, okay, you know, we want Western approval for our medical system so we’re going to press the goddamn red button. Or they did. And then everything followed from that. The problem is that the simulation was never based on reality.”
In another part of our conversation, he said something unforgettable:
“So, we’ve essentially been taken over by the medical Taliban, if you like.”
I pressed him one last time:
“David, in conclusion, finish this sentence: “The PCR test for Corona is as good as…”
His reply made me laugh. I didn’t know I still could laugh.
“It’s as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you need to give all your money to Scientology.“
The most important takeaway?
To rely on PCR testing to detect ‘coronavirus” is not only a fool’s errand.
Relying on PCR testing to detect “coronavirus” ensures that #TeamHuman will always be subject to the whims of the technocrats and transhumanists who seek to use this “coronavirus PLANdemic” to have their way with us.
Let’s connect all of these dots.
Is there really a 2020 “coronavirus pandemic”?
No doubt, the “corona virus” is a nasty form of the flu that impacts our most vulnerable members of #TeamHuman: the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those suffering from co-morbid symptoms.
As we go to press with this story on Friday, April 24th – the latest data indicate that the “corona virus” is trending at the same rate as the 2017-2018 seasonal flu.
But the bigger and more provocative question brings us back to the People’s Republic Of China, and how the “coronavirus” was originally identified.
Remember, when our cells get poisoned, they secrete “exosomes,” natural everyday part of immune response when cells are poisoned through toxicity, stress, fear, disease, infection, electromagnetic fields etc. Exosomes warn other cells in our bodies of toxicity – they are a vital part of our daily defense mechanism. Dr. Kaufman looked at the genetic makeup of exosomes under a microscope, and then looked at the genetic makeup of “coronavirus” under a microscope, and exosomes and “COVID 19” look almost exactly the same.
Again – Dr. Kaufman’s conclusion? The genetic makeup for exosomes and the genetic makeup for “coronavirus” seem almost identical, right down to locking into the same cell receptors.
What if?
What if “coronavirus” is a renamed and now-weaponized term for exosomes, part of our natural immune system, genetic material in our bodies we secrete in response to toxicity?
If this is true, as some have speculated. “coronavirus” can now be claimed to be everywhere and in everyone.
To repeat: if this is true, as Dr. Kaufman and others have speculated. “coronavirus” can now be claimed to be everywhere and in everyone.
In other words, “coronavirus” has no borders, and knows no boundaries.
Voila! The WHO declares a “coronavirus global pandemic,” and…
Anyone with flu-like symptoms gets diagnosed with “coronavirus,” regardless of co-morbid symptoms, and other health and environmental factors contributing to toxicity in our bodies – and of course, “coronavirus” numbers continue their inexorable rise on our TeeVees and in policy circles.
Remember – language matters, and so does WHO controls “coronavirus” definitions and data distribution.
The WHO can control definitions and data by claiming that our US newly-dead must have died “from testing positive for coronavirus” when IN REALITY, what’s happening is 1) WHO is testing exosomes – our bodies’ genetic material, and 2) labelling all co-morbid deaths as being caused by “coronavirus.”
Good news – as mentioned at the start of this article, we go live with this story on Friday, April 24th, 2020, the latest data indicate that the “coronavirus” is trending at the same rate as the 2017-2018 seasonal flu.
We’ll end as we began – with THE HIGH WIRE’s Del Bigtree tying together multiple strands of the emerging “coronavirus” story in a compelling way with special guests.
Part 3 of this COVID NATION trilogy will explore the “Technocratic Transhumanist Industrial Complex” (TTIC), their plans for #TeamHuman, and possible future scenarios ahead. Free Vermont!
