There is no science in the house of COVID.
14 hr ago
This story is a poetic outcry about the current state of science. For a comprehensive overview of different aspects of the “COVID health response,” you can check out my early 2021 article called, “Pandemic, Meet Panopticon. Panopticon, Meet Pandemic.” It still stands! (and it has a gazillion links).
It’s 2022—year three of COVID —and in the official kingdom, the science is gone.
We just don’t have any normal science anymore! What passes for “science” is a juggling act, a rotten effigy made from scraps of arbitrary conventions, peer pressure, political correctness, constantly changing definitions, computer models, egos of immature human beings, nepotism, fear, pride, wishful thinking, and blatant fraud.
Mediocrity is elevated. Dissent is banned.
Debating COVID with a mainstream pundit is as productive as debating the imminent victory of communism with a proverbial Soviet bureaucrat who won’t even listen to your position unless you substantiate it with Lenin quotes and party slogans. (And no, this is not a remark about isms—I don’t care about isms at all and I think that our problems come from broken spirits rather than “systems”—but I do have a memory of how adults talked to each other in formal contexts before the Soviet Union collapsed. Any “respectable” formal conversation required mentions of Lenin, scientific atheism, class struggle, and other virtue signaling topics—even if one was talking about their thesis on fifteenth century folk music!
And just like in my childhood, one was required to mention Lenin, today one is required to praise “safe and effective vaccines” (of course) and scold ivermectin (of course).
When confusion and dogma are thick in the air, I like to call upon my inner pure-minded five-year-old who is unaware of political correctness and just wants to know all the “why’s.” So let’s look at the existing situation through the eyes of a hypothetical pure-minded five-year-old!
What is science?
Science is a method of understanding life through observing the world, making theories about what leads to what, and then testing those theories by trying things out and being honest about the outcome. That is it. Nothing fancy.
Nature doesn’t care about our egos, our biases, our politics, our corporate sponsorships, our blind spots, our intellectual pride, or our linguistic games. It doesn’t care about our computer models, our elections, our fantasies, or what we want to believe to feel important or safe. It just is how it is—and while it’s possible to change the course of human history by enforcing pure fiction, it is not possible to change how things are underneath, in the world of the real real. And in the world of the real real, nature always wins. The mightiest kings and the richest bankers are babies comparing to the underlying power of nature, no matter how proudly they beat their chests!
Yes, crowds can be tempted to believe erroneous concepts (quite easily, actually). Yes, busy people can be convinced that DDT is safe and effective, including in curbing polio (while in reality it was causing polio-like symptoms), or that smoking is good for your lungs and beneficial in pregnancy (as doctors claimed back in the day). But no matter what people believe due to corruption or fashion, biology works how it works, and holding on to erroneous beliefs comes at a price. We all find that out in this way or another, this is how life works!
With that in mind, I want to go over several scream-worthy moments in the story of COVID.
When we say that a person “has COVID,” what does it mean?
“Has COVID” means that a person “tested positive.”
And what does that mean?
[If you want to read about Kary Mullis, HIV, and Dr. Willner, see this article, Fauci, Magical History, and Awakening.]
“Testing positive” in our case means that somewhere floating in the person’s system, there is some molecular material that corresponds to the thing, the computer generated genetic sequence that the tests were created to look for.
Whatever the thing is, whatever its origin, if its traces are present somewhere in the body of a person who is testing, and if they are present specifically in the spot that gets in contact with the swab, the person “tests positive.” The assumption is that the swab is sterile, and the suspect molecular structures can only come from the person being swabbed. (Lab contamination of samples exists, by the way, but we are leaving it aside for the sake of this story.)
The test does not know and cannot tell if the found-to-be-present molecular structure that matches “the thing” is biologically active (as in, the thing is having a replication party inside the host’s body), or just hanging out there with a long face, unable to procreate, or is purely mechanical. The test doesn’t know it because it’s a forensic tool, not a diagnostic tool.
Therefore, as long as those molecular structures, whatever they are, are floating in the air, and we happen to breathe them in (say, though the nose, and the nose is where the swab goes), the test can come back positive, assuming it’s run through a high enough number of cycles. And that, assuming that the test is specific and well implemented (see below).
There’s an old expression: “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. Sometimes referred to a “Maslow’s hammer”, this expression captures the idea of the law of the instrument. The origin of the expression seems to be from the observations that if you give a boy a hammer, they start pounding away at everything…Read more3 months ago · 61 likes · 13 comments · James Lyons-Weiler
A forensic method—again—the test cannot tell whether the thing is alive. It is also highly dependent on the accuracy of what it is programmed to look for. It is also highly dependent on the number of cycles. And there are no standards about any of those.
Based on all this, it is very easy to get a positive test for a piece of fruit or a glass of water, for example (which has been done.)
Now. Let me ask the most obvious question. If we don’t have a good way to reliably tell biologically active material from mechanical noise—and if the test is looking for a computer-generated sequence (and that’s regardless of the general discussion about the virus)—how good is the rest of the COVID tower?
If our “gold standard” method of diagnostics is so massively shady, what on earth are we doing? Science? What science? Am I naive to think that in order to even talk about COVID, we need to be able to reliably diagnose it?
And what about that Antarctic station hit by COVID?
Some time in 2019, I attended a fancy conference on AI. At that conference, I learned something extremely interesting. It caught my eye right then and there but until this whole COVID thing started, I didn’t realize how important it was. The talk was about diagnosing Alzheimer’s. The presenting doctor said that there was a recent point in time when it was agreed upon to adopt a new method of diagnosing Alzheimer’s, based on a particular biomarker, as opposed to symptoms. And according to this new agreement, “Alzheimer’s patients” no longer had to have symptoms. while some patient with classic symptoms of Alzheimer’s were no longer considered Alzheimer’s patients. Back then, I thought about it in anthropological terms (the role of agreed-upon conventions in science, etc.)—but now, wow, this principle is really messing with our lives!
Another example. From what I understand, at any point in time, in the body of any human being, there are loose cancer cells. Cells mutate in real time, and if the immune system is good, it goes after those cancer cells also in real time, and the person stays “cancer-free” for all practical purposes. But now imagine what happens if some pharmaceutical company comes up with a business idea to diagnose cancer based on a PCR test that looks for the tiniest cancer cells present in one’s body. If that’s done, most people can be called “cancer patients,” a “cancer epidemic” can be declared, and the sky is the limit for profits. Chemo therapy for everyone? Cancer vaccines? As I said, sky is the limit.
A pandemic can be declared without any change in the actual state of people’s health, simply based on how the disease is defined and diagnosed.
(I suspect that I am not the only one who has thought of this, and that this business model is coming… but let’s hope I am wrong. Actually, perhaps I am not wrong. Under 4IR, that PCR functionality can be attached to nano-sensors rummaging through one’s body and looking for those tiniest cancer cells—while simultaneously ruining one’s health and possibly actually causing cancerous mutations with all the electromagnetic pollution. Spring time for Pfizer… )
The dead horse of the mask
We’ve written quite a bit over the past two years about masks at Rational Ground. With mask mandates falling faster than an Omicron Gompertz curve, we thought it might be useful to review some of the best-of info from Rational Ground around mask wearing…Read more2 days ago · 70 likes · 15 comments · Justin Hart
I am not going to beat the dead horse any further—here’s a personal story instead. In early March 2020, I asked my mom, who was a doctor in Moscow for many years, if I should wear a mask to protect myself. Remember, in early March 2020, nobody had any idea what was going on, and Fauci was telling us that we absolutely shouldn’t wear masks. I was born in the USSR, so I thought, believe a bureaucrat to your detriment! So if he is saying that we shouldn’t wear masks, perhaps we should, as psychologically, wearing a mask felt like it was better than nothing, and God knows what this thing is, etc. So I asked my mom—and she told me, well, you could wear a mask if you want but it’s not going to help you much! Assuming it’s a respiratory virus, respiratory viruses spread not just through droplets but also through breath, and air travels far and isn’t stopped by those masks, so… And I thought, okay, makes sense but… but… better safe than sorry, so just in case… and I bought a mask and wore it outside. And one day, I was standing in line, and a drunk guy passed by me, and I could smell every molecule of liquor in his breath!! I laughed and realized that my mom was right. And so my mom was proven right, and by the end of March 2020, just as the world was just getting into masks big time, I was over it. That’s my personal story.
That is my biggest beef related to COVID, in addition to mandates. Ever since they told us that we were under attack from a deadly virus that has no cure, a strange thing has been happening. Any time a doctor would find a way to treat COVID patient effectively, that doctor would mysteriously find themselves under attack, and the whatever cure they found would be ridiculed or banned. If we look at it from the standpoint of a detective story, it would look like there is a motive, no?
My Global Disinformation Campaign Series: Part I – Introduction to the Disinformation Playbook Part II – Exposing the Corrupt Disinformation Campaign on Ivermectin Part II – Ivermectin – An Attack by New York State’s Attorney General Part III – Ivermectin – Lawyers Helping Doctors be Doctors…Read more25 days ago · 224 likes · 13 comments · Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
(A special note to those who believe that viruses are most certainly imaginary in principle, and therefore any mention of early treatments is counterproductive: I request that you exercise some good will. It is much more anti-transhumanist to help people who are suffering than to yell at very brave doctors who are dealing with enough crap as is, risking their careers to help suffering human beings. And by the way, I have personally taken the you know what, and it worked amazingly well. So it’s very difficult to convince me that it’s bogus! In any case, yelling is super unhelpful, whether it comes from arrogant CNN pundits or from anyone who assumes that their understanding of the 5D chess is superior to all.)
More stuff, apropos of nothing
I just came across this document, I am compelled to include it simply because it’s good. It’s a very dense but informative PDF (source) that goes over various timelines related to COVID, gain-of-function research, and development of novel “vaccines.” A real gem!!
Among other things, this document mentions that male participants of Pfizer trials were required to either abstain from sex or use condoms. I missed it earlier!!
I’ve written previously about how Comirnaty insert mentioned that the product had “not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or impairment of male fertility.” But I missed that they asked male participants to refrain from sex or wear a condom!
And then they just went ahead and said that it’s safe and effective. Great science!!!
Tessa Fights Robots is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.