The three biggest scientific developments in the Covid situation happened in late November

Dear Friend and Reader:

This year we have all been dealt about as much as we can handle, maybe a lot more. Many people were exhausted before all that has happened, and have been pushed to the edge.

The world has not just experienced what we are told is a pandemic but many related events, and many ways of perceiving it. Most people are feeling the economic impact of entire economies reshaped, school districts shut down, industries vanished, and tens of millions newly unemployed or out of business, nearly overnight.

Yet there seems to be little agreement on what is happening. People I know who posited themselves as radicals both on the left and the right are arguing that we should trust the government. (And what was that AK-47 for anyway?)

I have covered this split in consciousness in a new article called Which Pandemic Are You Living Through? The article contrasts the pandemic we were promised with the one that we actually got.

The world has seemed to split into parts. People are divided between those who are terrified of a novel virus (which means, of death from some new, uncontrolled cause), those who are taking it in stride or are a bit skeptical, and those who are tracking the official narrative falling apart day by day.

Over Thanksgiving week, three of the most scientifically relevant developments of the year took place, all involving the official scientific establishment. These developments demand an actual inquiry into why people are getting sick, and the true nature of any outbreak(s) that are happening.

I have never seen such disparity between what is reported in the official news media, and what I know to be true from my own journalistic efforts. There is always some disparity, but sometimes it feels like CNN is on one planet and I am on another.

These splits constitute true cognitive dissonance, and I’m wondering how long it can hold up. None of the facts I am about to report can be reconciled against the official narrative or what we are seeing broadcast on television 24 by 7. I recognize that what you’re about to read raises more questions than it offers answers — but we deserve honest answers and have a right to seek out honest information.

Over Thanksgiving week, three of the most scientifically relevant developments of the year took place, all involving the official scientific establishment. These developments demand an actual inquiry into why people are getting sick, and the true nature of any outbreak(s) that are happening.

In truth they are all positive developments. But they will make some people angry — very angry. We might ask why that is. I think it’s time to consider our relationship to fear. It’s time to consider that someone cannot be reasoned out of what they were shocked and terrified into believing. We might consider carefully the words of those who try to do so, and demand the data to back up their claims.

Johns Hopkins Study Says There were No Excess Deaths in 2020

First, Johns Hopkins University, in an official newsletter (founded 1896, and stylized News-Letter), reported that by its independent review of CDC data, there are no excess deaths in 2020.

Johns Hopkins is a pillar of the medical and academic establishments and has been one of the official voices on the Covid issue. In fact they are so involved that the university hosted Event 201, which essentially planned out the entire “pandemic” weeks before it was known to exist.

The notion of excess deaths is at the foundation of the claim that there is a pandemic happening. (Another foundation is that a disease be newl the definition of a pandemic involves a novel disease or pathogen.)

Any other year, this scenario would have made headlines and there would have been follow-up by the national press corps.

“Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same,” the University published in its official newsletter.

“These data analyses suggest 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,” the article continues.

This caused such an uproar that five days later, the administration tried to walk back the article, claiming it was issuing the retraction “to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media.” They revert to the authority of the same CDC whose data the paper’s authors analyzed, ignoring their own findings and declaring 300,000 dead Americans over the norm*.

It is impossible to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, or to say it’s the result of some oversight. It was a statistical study by one of the most prestigious institutions in the world.

The Johns Hopkins administration did not say that the article was wrong, only that other sources should also be considered. What source would they prefer people to use for data besides official federal agencies? And what exactly happened? Is nobody vetting official publications of Johns Hopkins, or did they get heat from political actors for “minimizing” the pandemic? Any other year, this scenario would have made headlines and there would have been follow-up by the national press corps.

It is impossible to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, or to say it’s the result of some oversight. It was a statistical study published by one of the most prestigious institutions in the world.

*All causes mortality is difficult to prove while it’s happening. Normally an excess seen one year is compensated by lower figures the previous and subsequent years. Additionally, any excess must have its various causes carefully determined. There is rarely just one cause. Also, the standard deviation from the norm must be considered. We have seen other reports that there is no excess mortality overall despite claims in the major media. So it was reassuring but not surprising to see Johns Hopkins release this analysis, despite the fact that they swept it under the rug five days later. And it’s utterly incredible that the news media take no note of this at all. People who write parking tickets let you get away with far less.

Ten Million People Studied: No Asymptomatic Spread

Second, on Nov. 20, 2020, the eminent British journal Nature (founded in 1869) published a new study of nearly 10 million people in one city demonstrating that there is no asymptomatic spread of the virus. This is not based only on who “tested positive” but who rather tested positive and actually got sick — and what happened next.

The study involved testing every person in the city of Wuhan, where the outbreak is said to have begun. The notion of the lockdowns, of social distancing, of masking, and closing the economic and social life of entire societies is based solely on the notion of asymptomatic spread. It would be easy enough to have sick people stay home.

While the “asymptomatic spread” concept has never had a solid foundation, and is based on presumptions and also computer models, and was denied by a top official of the World Health Organization in the spring, studying every person in a massive city provides insight into what is really going on.

The study used extremely stringent protocols. For example, “All asymptomatic positive cases, repositive [reinfection] cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the results of nucleic acid testing were negative. None of the detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”

If there is no asymptomatic spread, then there is no need for isolating older people from their families, for shuttering businesses, for closing school districts, for quarantines lasting longer than the planned vacation, for plexiglass dividers, for a vaccine, or for a climate of general terror. But it gets better.

Consortium of European Scientists Calls for Retraction of PCR Test Specifications as Flawed and Fraudulent

Finally, as if all of that were not enough, a consortium of European scientists has conducted an analysis of the specifications for the PCR test being used to create the case count, the death count, and to conduct nearly all other research. The test is the only device being used as a diagnostic tool for Covid, which is not in the device’s capabilities.

The group demanded, in a letter dated Nov. 28, the retraction of a paper published on Jan. 23 by Eurosurveillance. This paper established the entire scientific basis for the pandemic: that there was proof of a novel virus, proof of causation of Covid disease, and a valid test protocol. You may read a very short summary here in an unrolled Twitter thread.

The authors conclude that the problems they detail “render the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”

The retraction demand, co-signed by 22 scientists, outlines fatal flaws and evidence of fraud in test methods being used involving a device called the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). This is a machine that can find individual molecules, a procedure which is now claimed to diagnose a disease on its authority alone. The independent review found 10 categories of major scientific flaws in the design and use of the test protocol.

The protocols were primarily designed by Christian Drosten. They were not peer reviewed before being published in a publication for which he sits on the editorial board — one of many conflicts of interest cited by the European scientists. The analysis includes a detailed look at the consequences of false positives.

“Over one hundred governments have used these results to apply unprecedented measures to control transmission; such as lockdowns which have irreparably impacted millions of lives and livelihoods and direct attacks on people’s basic rights and personal freedoms, further resulting in catastrophic damages for entire economies,” the consortium writes in its report.

“These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses,” the authors wrote.

The Nov. 28 demand for retraction by European scientists is the first technical analysis by molecular biologists and doctors that explains why so many false positives happen, and why they are worse in the case of the Covid version of the PCR.

“These are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses,” the authors wrote.

The authors conclude that the problems they detail “render the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”

This is the same protocol endorsed by the World Health Organization and which is being used in nearly every country. For what it’s worth, the Supreme Court of Portugal ruled that the test is so unreliable it cannot be used to quarantine people.

PCR Misuse and False Positives Have Been Documented All Year — and as Far Back as the Early 1990s

Since the spring, smaller publications have been documenting problems with the PCR device, beginning with Jon Rappoport’s analysis in late March of government documents about use of PCR for 2019-n-CoV, which say that the test cannot be used to diagnose disease or infection status — other factors must be taken into account.

Then a week or so later, Celia Farber published an investigative report about whether the device was ever meant to find a virus. She has covered the PCR issue since the 1990s.

On June 27, Off-Guardian published its report, COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless — which is exactly what the consortium of European scientists concluded six months later.

On July 22, Planet Waves published our version of the PCR analysis based on four months of independent research into the matter, bringing in the 2006 Dartmouth-Hitchcock incident demonstrating the potential for 100% false positives, that is, every single positive test being incorrect.

The test is not based on a real virus found in nature, but on theoretical sequences composed on a computer. Nobody can have the virus that is being tested for, because it does not exist in nature.

Then finally in August, The New York Times published the first of several articles indicating that because the cycle threshold of the PCR is set too high, the test may be getting up to 90% false positives. It did not quote Anthony Fauci, the federal government’s virus czar, who warned of the same thing in an interview a month earlier.

The Times reporting a 90% false positive rate represented an improvement from the 100% false positive rate that the Times previously documented in 2007, after a false alarm caused by the PCR at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. The article warned that relying on the PCR could create pseudo epidemics, which according to one source in the article, “happen all the time.”

This news comes on the heels of the revelation that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has no clinical samples of the virus it claims has killed 300,000 Americans. The test is not based on a real virus found in nature, but on theoretical sequences composed on a computer. (Here is how that looks. The digital virus is then turned into synthetic virus, which has a word: the vaccine.)

Nobody in the population can have the virus that is being tested for because it does not exist in nature. Said another way, the test cannot find 2019-nCoV (also called SARS-CoV-2) because it’s not told to look for that — it’s told to look for something else.

This issue is discussed in detail by the European scientists. It is worth reading even if you have to gloss over some of the technicalities.

You may ask how that — or any of this — is possible, or why it’s not on CNN. I am asking the same questions every day.

With love,

SPECIAL NOTE — I will have one of the co-authors of the retraction study as my guest on Friday’s Planet Waves FM.