Jack Kerwick, But are they from COVID?
In this series of articles on The Virus, I’ve been exposing the gaping holes in various aspects of the Narrative.
If SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, purified, and extracted according to the scientific procedures that have long been in place for isolating, purifying, and extracting bacteriophages and other “giant viruses,” then two questions need to be asked and answered:
(1) What accounts for the endless stream of COVID cases upon which Big Media has been breathlessly reporting for the last year?
(2) From what are all of these people getting sick and dying?
In my last essay, I answered (1). Here, I address (2).
COVID Sickness and Death?
As I showed in my last piece, the PCR test, as its inventor, Karry Mullis conceded, was never intended to quantify viral loads. “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron,” he said. So, the PCR test—the only test, beyond the bare presumption of doctors examining patients, used to identify COVID cases—is intrinsically and significantly limited. But as it has been implemented in practice, per the recommendation of the CDC, it is worthless.
Labs typically run the test at 40 cycles—which is guaranteed to produce false-positives.
So, doctors’ guesses that patients have COVID (a guess that promises to return more money to hospitals than they would have received had these physicians not diagnosed their patients with COVID), plus a geyser of false-positive test results equals…an explosion of COVID cases.
There’s more, though, and it is not difficult to figure out.
Given this formula, and, importantly, given the loose, glaringly non-unique and non-specific symptoms that are assigned to COVID-19, it is the easiest thing for “Experts” to bundle together illnesses with these symptoms from which people have been getting sick and/or dying since forever and repackage them under a single label: COVID-19.
Think about it: a cough, running nose, sore throat, chills, chest congestion, fever, loss of taste and smell—these are all symptoms of a plethora of things, from the common cold to seasonal influenza and a whole lot else. Particularly since the vast majority of COVID cases are “mild,” it’s with the greatest of ease that any single one of these symptoms or any number of combinations of them can be used as a pretext by which to establish a “COVID case.”
This is not necessarily to say that the symptoms in question are not signs of COVID or the SARS-CoV-2 virus that is claimed to be its cause. It’s only to note that in the absence of scientifically confirming definitively that (a) there is a unique strain of a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, (b) that it is the cause of something called COVID-19, and that, (3) given the scandalously unreliable PCR test, people do in fact have COVID, symptoms that are associated with the latter are more economically, more plausibly explained by way of reference to illnesses that have long been with us.
The Principle of Parsimony—better known since the 14th century as “Ockham’s Razor”—applies: When confronted with two or more explanatory hypotheses, all things being equal, reason dictates that we opt for the one that is simplest.
Since many of the symptoms now being associated with COVID until recently were explained in terms of, say, the flu, and, given the foregoing facts regarding the science—or lack of science—behind the COVID Narrative, it makes better sense to continue explaining those symptoms in terms of the flu.
Indeed, there is no doubt that a great shell game has been transpiring for a year now as cases of various illnesses have been re-labeled as COVID cases.
And sometimes we have to thank the most unwitting actors for revealing these unpopular truths.
For example, over at John Hopkins University, Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s program, used data from the CDC to analyze the effect of COVID-19 deaths in America on all other deaths. Reasonably enough, she had expected to witness a substantial number of excess deaths in 2020, i.e. deaths by all other causes plus the orgy of COVID deaths with which politicians and those in the media had been singularly preoccupied.
She was mistaken. Sorely mistaken.
Yanni Gu, a writer for the university’s student newspaper, reports: “Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19.”
This was surprising because COVID (not unlike virtually everything else) overwhelmingly affects elderly people. Thus, “experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data.” Furthermore, “the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same” (emphases added).
Whoa. Briand would soon discover that the plot was just beginning to thicken. What the “data analyzes suggest,” Gu writes, is “that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States” (emphases added).
Wait—what?! But how is this possible? Are the faculty, staff, and students at John Hopkins University a bunch of “conspiracy nuts”??
Nope. There is a perfectly rational, and simple, explanation to account for the unbridgeable chasm between the media-concocted perception of COVID and the reality that Briand discovered:
Deaths from all other cause were being re-classified—misclassified—as death from COVID.
And how did Briand determine this? For the first time ever, deaths from all other causes—heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza, and pneumonia—decreased.
Especially shocking was the realization that heart disease, which has always been the number one killer in America, appeared to have suddenly lost that distinction with the onset of COVID.
Moreover, deaths from all other causes decreased just in proportion to the extent to which COVID deaths increased. “This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly…the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.”
Briand concludes that “deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19,” Gu informs us.
In response to being asked whether she thought that other diseases were being relabeled as COVID, Briand replied that unless this was the case, “what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers” (emphases added).
She reiterated her findings: “But a decreased number of heart attacks and all other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification.”
Within 24 or so hours of the publication of the article relaying Genevieve Briand’s discoveries, the student paper at John Hopkins University retracted it. They never, however, denied the truth of a single syllable of either Briand’s analysis nor its summary of it. That it was political pressure, and not shoddy scholarship that informed its decision is clear, for the school paper saved its article in a PDF file (to which I link above) for all of the world to read.
This essay and the last two should suffice to convince readers that, at the very least, the conventional COVID Narrative is flawed from first to last. A brief summary:
(1) No isolation, purification, and extraction of a unique virus, and no scientific confirmation that it is the cause of a unique disease.
(2) Take presumption, an intrinsically unreliable test guaranteed to pump out false positives like they’re going out of style, and the redefinition of “cases” to mean anyone who tests positive via this unreliable test and together they yield…an explosion of virus “cases.”
(3) Take an exceedingly and ever expanding loose definition of COVID combined with the re-labeling of deaths from other diseases as COVID and we get a “pandemic” of Virus deaths.
The evidence is ubiquitous. We need only look.