Tuesday, September 29, 2020

The Hoax That Is

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.

Thus spoke the Scottish poet Charles Mackay (1814-89). His words ring true with regard to the public reaction to the COVID-19 ‘plandemic’. As every day passes, more of the British people are waking up from a mass media-induced trance. COVID-19 is, increasingly evidently, a low-risk disease, if it exists at all. Furthermore, the UK governments reaction has, all along, been steeped in utter mendacity.

Consider, first, mortality data. Suppose an individual tests positive for COVID-19, remains asymptomatic, then, twenty-seven days later, is killed in a road accident. This is, bizarrely, recorded as a COVID death. In Article 138, I cited Williams, Crookes, Glass and Glass (2020), who calculated that the true COVID-19 mortality rate is only a fraction of the official figure. This deception can only be deliberate.

Next, if we assess cases, it must be acknowledged that this term is being used, incorrectly, to describe positive tests, as opposed to respecting its true definition, which is symptomatic episodes requiring medical intervention. The test used is not actually a diagnostic test at all. It is called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (Figure 141.1), which is an ingenious molecular technique used to amplify (replicate) small sections of genetic material. I have used this incredible discovery many times. Its multiple applications are fundamental to modern forensic, analytical and medical science. However, it is unable to differentiate: (a) live virus from dead viral material; (b) one coronavirus subgroup from any of the other three; or (c) a coronavirus from some other RNA viruses. In other words, PCR tests are of low specificity, leading to a significant proportion of false positive results. The governments advisers must know this as well as I do.


Figure 141.1: Dr Kary B. Mullis (1944-2019) pioneered the polymerase chain reaction technique and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993. I had the pleasure of meeting him six years ago at the Royal Institution of Great Britain (see Article 78). As well as being strikingly intelligent and an unrepentant maverick, his odd sense of humour was never far from the surface. Overall, in terms of intellect and attitude to life, Dr Mullis is possibly the most impressive person I have ever met. Were he still alive, I am certain that he would be appalled by the dishonest use of his great scientific invention.

Copyright © 2020 GeneOnline News

Perhaps the most devious method of inflating the cases figure is the unnecessarily high number of so-called PCR amplification cycles to produce a workable mass of genetic material from a tiny sample. The prescribed number of cycles is abnormally high, resulting inevitably in what may be termed exaggerated positives. The more a sample is replicated, the more likely the positivity threshold will be reached. Whoever designed this analytical protocol must be aware of the biochemical sleight-of-hand.

Currently, the number of cases is increasing. The reason for this is that more tests are being carried out  indeed, ten times as many as were being done six months ago. The ratio of positive tests to total tests has barely changed. The number of associated deaths and hospitalizations remains low and uncorrelated. There is neither reason nor evidence to suggest that there will be a second wave.

The COVID-19 rabbit hole becomes murkier still when considering who is behind all this systematic governmental deceit. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty is a member of the UK Vaccine Network; and, while working at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, it received £40 million from the vaccine-pushing Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance was CEO of vaccine-researching GlaxoSmithKline (2012-8) and remains a prominent shareholder. Both are in blatant conflict of interest (Figure 141.2). As for Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College, whose initial doom-laden advice guided the government, he has serious form when it comes to scaremongering and being hopelessly wrong. Therefore, is the government inflating COVID-19 data in a desperate attempt to prolong public fear until some kind  any kind  of lucrative vaccine becomes available? It would appear that way.


Figure 141.2: Patrick Vallance (left), whom some politician inexplicably decided to recommend for a knighthood, and Chris Whitty have much to answer for. I cannot understand how any informed individual can take their word seriously. They are the very antithesis of the late Dr Mullis.

Copyright © 2020 Times Newspapers Ltd

Throughout the plandemic’, the infantile term covidiot has been routinely used by mainstream media to describe those of us who refuse to swallow the official narrative. Name-calling has always been a calling card of those with no legitimate argument. Similarly, the term anti-vaxxer is thrown at those of us who would refuse the experimental injections. This is both facile and disingenuous.

My own scepticism is as follows. Despite much diligent laboratory work, there has never been an effective vaccine for any coronavirus, or, indeed, RNA viruses in general. (In the last decade, the seasonal influenza vaccine has been more than 50% effective only twice, and this a result of many years of dogged research.) For reasons of safety, in vitro vaccine research and associated clinical trials often take more than twelve years. Opposing the circumvention of standard safety protocols (to rush through a vaccine for a low-risk virus) does not equate to rejecting the principle of vaccination, which is, arguably, one of sciences greatest achievements.

Despite the dispiriting sight of (some) children exiting my sons schools with their faces covered by pieces of bacteria-ridden cloth (which do not prevent viral transmission but do serve to increase the viral load of the wearer), I am slightly more optimistic that people are beginning to realize that they are being played by the dark forces of a shamelessly authoritarian government. Back in the spring, I was unsure whether this dishonest narrative had been born merely of political incompetence, scientific illiteracy and a compulsion to cover up previous lies. I was unconvinced that it was a hoax from the beginning and hence reluctant to say so. My reluctance is no more. The hoax is there for those of us that are able to see it. Real eyes realize real lies!

Given the draconian removal of basic human rights and liberties on a false pretext, I sometimes wonder: if the Nazis had successfully invaded Britain in the 1940s, would they have treated us any worse than this?

Copyright © 2020 Paul Spradbery

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.