The Infection Myth? By Brian Simpson

     Here at, we are trying to cover all bases on the coronavirus pandemic, surely the most socially disruptive thing to impact upon normal social life. We have seen some of the absurd consequences of social distancing across the world, and have examined the coming economic impacts of a prolonged crisis. But there is little available from the outright “false flag” school, that conspiratorial theorists from the Dissent Right, know and love. You know, the type of argument that sees some shooting event as involving method actors, and then the proponent gets sued, goes bankrupt, then silent. However, we don’t have that in this area of debate, but there is still some level of scepticism out there.

     Here is sceptical material by David Crowe, which goes to the heart of the matter, attacking the RNA tests associated with Cov-19. The tests are allegedly inaccurate, and generate false positives, making the extent of the prevalence of the infection spread, greater than it should in reality be. The core of the problem is the failure to isolate the actual RNA of the alleged virus, Crowe believes:

“Scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with influenza or pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups of scientists was honest enough to admit this: “we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood” [2] But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41 cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, “41 patients… confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV.” Another paper quietly admitted that: “our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates” [1] Koch’s postulates, first stated by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the late 1800s, can simply be stated as: • Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness. • Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen. • Verify that the same illness is produced. • Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it really is creating the illness. Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, “It is obvious that Koch's postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases”. That was a long time ago, but the problem continues. None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted to purify the virus. And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is ‘isolation’). Reference [1] did publish electron micrographs, but it can clearly be seen in the lesser magnified photo, that the particles believed to be coronavirus are not purified, as the quantity of material that is cellular is much greater. The paper notes that the photos are from “human airway epithelial cells”. Also consider that the photo included in the article will certainly be the “best” photo, i.e. the one with the greatest number of particles. Lab technicians may be encouraged to spend hours to look around to find the most photogenic image, the one that most looks like pure virus. There is no way to tell that the RNA being used in the new coronavirus PCR test is found in those particles seen in the electron micrograph. There is no connection between the test, and the particles, and no proof that the particles are viral. A similar situation was revealed in March 1997 concerning HIV, when two papers published in the same issue of the journal “Virology” revealed that the vast majority of what had previously been called “pure HIV” was impurities that were clearly not HIV, and the mixture also included micro-vesicles that look very similar to HIV under an electron microscope, but are of cellular origin.”

     I note that this epistemological problem will be present not only in Covid-19 work, but as Crowe also states, in other viral studies, such as HIV and SARS, and in his forthcoming book, a chapter of which is referenced here, he goes into detail about this. The significance?

“• Without purification and exposing animals to viral particles we do not know if the virus is pathogenic (disease causing). It could be an opportunistic infection (invades unhealthy people with weakened immune systems) or a passenger virus (that is carried along by risky behavior, such as eating an animal carrier of a virus). • We don’t know the false positive rate of the test without widespread testing of healthy people far from places where people are being diagnosed with this possible new disease. If the test is 99% accurate, in a city of over 10 million, like Wuhan, there would be about 100,000 false positives (1%). It is easy to generate a false epidemic if you just keep testing like this. And it is worse if you restrict the test to people with symptoms, because then the flaws in the test will not be revealed for longer. • If someone is sick there is no proof that any or all of their symptoms are due to the virus, even if it is present. Some people may be immune, some may have some symptoms caused by the virus, but others caused by the drugs they are given, by pre-existing health conditions, and so on. • We don’t know if the people who test negative are infected or not, especially when they show up with similar symptoms. For example, in [2], out of 59 patients, only 41 tested positive, but the researchers were clearly not sure whether the remaining 18 were uninfected or not. If they truly are not infected, they lend weight to the coronavirus not being the cause of their illness, as they had symptoms indistinguishable from the 41 positives. Testing at such an early stage of knowledge is incredibly dangerous.”

     What should be our response to this material? Well, unless one has a PhD in biology/medicine, probably one is not qualified to evaluate the technical arguments about the reliability of the rRT-PCR tests:

     It is not scientific to cherry pick material, and believe because one finds it convenient, that it fits our politics. So, in areas of uncertainly we will need to acknowledge the material and then examine the public policy consequences. It seems to me that Crowe’s arguments would knock over most uses of the polymerase chain reaction PCR method. I simply do not know if this is correct or not, but he could be right. Sorry, accepting uncertainty is what it means to be real scientist/critical thinker. Here is another claim, that there is a causal relation between the 5G technology and the coronavirus, something which I had never thought about before. The argument given here is that the high frequency of 5 G radiation poisons cells, and that what is pushed out are toxins, in the form of a “virus.”

     The above talk is by a former 5 G technocrat, who points out that Wuhan, Spain and Italy had rolled out 5 G, but Russia does not have 5 G and few fatalities.  So, is this not caused by a virus at all but by radiation? Is this causation of correlation? This position has its critics for sure:

     Certainly, there are scientific concerns about 5 G for sure, but what is needed is some sort of scientific test of this idea via experiments. But, even if this idea is not so, the 5 G developments are a technocrat worry in themselves, as the power generated by the internet of things will enable surveillance to be taken to the final level, and poisoning us for over-kill. And, that is a big problem. In conclusion, as always, readers should listen to all this material, and make up their own mind. I never dismiss any such ideas, because we know for a fact that the people who rule over us are totally evil, and seek only to enslave us, if not destroy us:



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Saturday, 20 July 2024

Captcha Image