LENNY'S WEB PAGES

Does the 2019 Coronavirus Exist?

Yes, this is a Test by Miles Mathis

First published March 18, 2020

I keep going back to Neil Degrasse Tyson admitting to Steven Colbert this corona fake is a test on the Late Show. “A test to see if we will believe scientists.” Sorry, Neil, I fail that one with a score of zero. I don't trust you or Steven at all. In fact, I don't even believe you are a real scientist. I think you are just an actor reading from Teleprompters. But there is one thing I know for sure: no one pushing this coronahoax deserves the name of scientist, no matter what degrees he may have or what chair he may inhabit.

But that is not why I am here today. I am here because watching that clip made me realize how utterly lost these people like Tyson, Colbert, and those feeding them scripts really are. To see them smiling broadly and saying this stuff to canned applause was like watching damned spirits running gleefully through the gates of Hell. Because, yes, Neil, this is a test, but it isn't a test by you and your cabal on us unwashed masses, to see what level of your lies we will buy this month. It is a test UPON YOU, one that you aren't even aware you are taking.

All of life is a test, for everyone alive. We are all writing our own stories day by day, and the form those stories take determine the advancement of our spirits. So as the governors write these grand fictions, they aren't only trying to determine your response, for their greater profit and control, they are unwittingly writing their own life stories, where they have accepted the role of bad guy. They appear to think it all doesn't matter, since life is a stage anyway, where the bad guy is the best role—besides being the most profitable one. But in thinking this way they have trapped themselves in this lowest level of thought and existence, ignoring the level above that. This is a grave error, because the level above determines the value of everything at their level. Being trapped in this lowest level, they think value is determined by bank accounts or mundane authority, but it isn't. Value is determined by spiritual enrichment: has the story you have written about yourself made you a bigger, better person, or has it made you a smaller, nastier person? Watching Tyson and Colbert leaves us in no least doubt: they are becoming smaller and nastier by the minute, so those controlling them must be digressing even faster.

We see the same thing with someone like Tom Hanks, who started out cute and cuddly back in the Big or Splash days, but is now turning himself into some sort of lying monster. He looks effing awful, and it isn't just because he is getting old. . . it is because he has chosen to join the monsters.

Yes, he's 63 now, but he's looked like garbage for two decades now. The last time he looked decent was in Castaway, but that was 20 years ago. You have to ask why his eyes are disappearing into his face, and why he looks so forlorn, so castaway. You will say it is because he isn't sleeping, but ask yourself why he isn't sleeping. We see this look on all these people, since it is what we might call their signature. As perhaps the best example we see the same phenomenon from James Franco, another one from the families. He is only 41 but his eyes have been disappearing into his face since he was 25. When he hits 63, will he even be able to see at all?

It is doubtful, since all these people seem to be blind to what the rest of us know by heart: evil has consequences. Lying, stealing, and hoaxing aren't just games you are playing on a stupid populace, they are real events imprinting directly on your own spirits. As you become smaller, you look smaller. As you become nastier, you look nastier. It isn't rocket science. And even more important than the way your face looks, is the way your soul looks. Because once you die, you can ditch your face, but you can't ditch your soul. You have to carry it into your next life, and once you get there I assure you you will wish you had taken better care of it before.

But this is the way of it, and always has been. It is said that the bad test the good, but it is actually the reverse that is more true now. I am testing these people far more than they are testing me. People like me put huge pressure on the governors, and I am not talking about as a matter of avoiding revolution. Revolution is another mundane matter, a series of arbitrary events which—like everything else—are important only as a test of spirit. A backdrop on which your story is written. The pressure I put on them is by simply being a messenger of the truth—a truth that they and everyone else already knows. But in the hurly-burly, this truth gets buried and lost. The governors spend trillions burying it on purpose, and the rest of their time is spent in denial. So my existence is like an accelerant. The gods and muses insert me into the mix to speed up the outcome: the governors can't fool around any longer pretending they aren't who they know they are. In response to me they have to make a choice: back off and admit the con is already far too large to maintain, or continue to accelerate the con and hope it doesn't backfire on them. I have already given them that choice and shown them how easy it would be to go back. But we can see that they are choosing to go forward, and to accelerate events beyond all reason. In so doing, they are choosing to self-destruct even faster than they were before.

This is what I meant when I said before that the revolution is already proceeding. It has been happening for over a decade, as a worm in the minds of these people. The truth has been eating away at them year by year, as we can see from their response. No event is clearer evidence of that than his corona event, since it reeks of desperation, confusion, and miscalculation. It shows me that it isn't just the visible dweebs online who crumble under the least pressure, as we have seen in my droll battles with the various internet trolls. Even the biggest of the invisible big boys don't have any idea how to deal with those such as me. They are long prepared for anything. . . except reality. They can deflect any attack. . . except a messenger of the Muse walking straight up to them and telling them the truth. That is the one thing not on their lists, the one thing they have no contingency plan for.

Someone on Cuttingthroughthefog suggested this coronahoax was a message from the Cabal to me, showing me the power they have to move the masses around at will. But unfortunately I got just the opposite message, as you see. This event confirmed to me my own power, not theirs. In just the last month I have come to understand who I am, even more than before, which is very bad news for them. I won't tell you exactly what I know or how I know it, but while many think things are flying out of control, I can tell you just the opposite is true. On a spiritual level, things on this planet are finally firming up after decades or centuries of flab. Things are happening, and you should be glad of it. Welcome the test, whatever it is, since it will provide you with the opportunity to do good deeds. I say this to the governors as well. Your opportunity to turn around is and will be greater than even before, and more obvious. I suggest you take it. Only you can rewrite your own story.

If you are still not getting it, let me put it yet another way. The narrative is being pushed by some at Cutting that this latest hoax is the beginning of martial law, forced vaccines, chipping, the whole Alex Jones prison planet thing. I don't think it is. I think it is just the latest bluff, floated to create fear. But say it IS a pretext for that, and that we are moving into some sort of Mordor future. Sounds awful, but ask yourself who it will be worst for. In Mordor, who would be the most miserable? The lowest goblin or orc? No, the most miserable person in Mordor is. . . Sauron himself. But we don't have to take Tolkien's word for it, or Dante's or Milton's. All we have to do is look around.

The first, Soros, looks like he hasn't slept since about 1960. Then we have a Rothschild and a Rockefeller. Rockefeller was always smiling after about 1990, but that is because he had that grin surgically implanted on his face. But it is the eyes that tell us everything, as always.

I will be told by actual Rothschilds or Rockefellers that once in you can't get out. You can't “turn around” or go straight, because you aren't allowed to. But that is the usual bluff. As a human, your freedom is infinite from birth and never lessens. You can do anything you wish. Some things are more difficult, it is true, but nothing is impossible. The more difficult things are simply the more meaningful. You will tell me you will actually be killed if you cross your family. I don't think you will be, but even if you are, it is far better than to continue to spiral down into the abyss with them. Make the turn, and if they kill you that is their bad. Your death is not a mark upon your soul, but it will be a mark on theirs.

Some will answer me that they have no evidence of this higher world I am talking about. But they know about granddad's henchmen, because they have witnessed them. My answer to that is that if you have witnessed your granddad and his henchmen, you have witnessed all the proof of a higher world you require. Simply by calling them henchmen, you have admitted you know they are bad. If you know about bad, you also know about good. Given that, and only that, you are required to do good. You were born knowing that, so pretending otherwise is useless. Pretending you have no “evidence” won't fly. You aren't fooling anyone by pretending that the gods need to give you more evidence than that: that they are required to appear in some burning bush to you personally and give you detailed instructions. They aren't and won't, but their expectations of you haven't changed. They are what they always have been, and you know it.

I put it that way because the time for parables is over. The time for allegories and metaphors is over. If you need detailed instructions, this is all you are going to get. You are hereby reminded that the gods know you know these things, and any bag of lame excuses won't even be opened. You won't even be allowed to present evidence or make arguments, since your life already stands as your evidence and argument. The evidence and arguments are already made.

You will say, “Then there is no point to turning around. I have already done more evil than I can ever

atone for, so I might as well continue on as is.” Wrong. That is just the lazy “once a devil always a devil argument”, and you are born knowing it is false. If there were no chance of redemption, you wouldn't need to be born in the first place. Writing a new story would be pointless. So the very fact you are here disproves it. THE REASON YOU ARE HERE IS TO TURN AROUND. So best get on with it. The only thing that is pointless is continuing to be evil tomorrow, since it is just wasted time. It is like time spent hoeing rocks or watering cement. Or, to be more exact, it is like time spent investing in ugly pills, and taking one every morning.

You may laugh, but like everything else, this is indeed far simpler than people generally make it. Spiritual matters are made complex, convoluted, and esoteric as another form of pretense. People pretend this is all too difficult for humans to comprehend, hoping that will be accepted as some sort of excuse. But do you really think you are fooling anyone with that? Don't you think the gods will see through that in a second? As I said, they gave you this knowledge of good and evil as part of your package at birth. They know that and you know that, so denying it won't fly. Saying you were tricked by L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith or Ram Dass or Steven Spielberg isn't going to mean anything. Nor is the plea that you were born into a “materialistic” time, and just did what everyone else was doing. That argument didn't work with your dad when you were four, so what makes you think it is going to fool the gods? “But Dad, everyone else was stealing gumballs!”

But if you need detailed instruction, I will give you a bit more. You had better start taking this seriously immediately, because it is deadly serious. Tending your own spirit and writing your own story is job one. It is the only job you are capable of. It is why you are here. All else is subordinate to that.

I'll tell you something else: the rags-to-riches story has been done and no one above is impressed by it. Same for the riches-to-riches story. Least impressive of all is the riches-to-riches story posing as the rags-to-riches story. That isn't fooling anyone and never has. The gods would rather read a bawdy limerick than read that old sham again.

There are an infinity of possible stories of virtue, and only a few of them have so far been attempted. I can tell you from experience that the gods are thrilled beyond words by any attempt at creativity, and will take time out of their busy schedules to assist new stories and storytellers.

This is why the revolution is proceeding and why it is unstoppable. It is not a revolution of guns or marching in the streets, so it can't be stopped by the National Guard. And, counter-intuitively, it isn't a revolution of the lower class against the upper. The only revolution that has any meaning at this time is a revolution of people against themselves. Bad people have to fall out of love with their own lousy stories, and they can only do that once they really comprehend just how awful those stories are. That is why I am here: to grab them and drag them forcibly from their own stages, making them see how paltry and vulgar it all is. But also to give them an idea of what else is possible.

In the end, all of life is revolutionary. The life of each person is a potential or real revolution every morning, as they choose or don't choose to write new and better things about themselves. In this sense, life only has worth as revolution. For plants and animals, the point of life would appear to be to do the same things they have always done, since there is no need to turn around, or any possibility of it. They appear to be fine as they are. But humans are not born on that cycle. They appear to be born with huge amounts of baggage from prior lives, baggage they cannot jettison. Even the best of us are weighted down with strange impulses and weird imaginings. We are at battle with ourselves from the first day. Many interpret this as a curse, but it is simply a function of our ability to grow very quickly. With that

ability comes the opposite ability: the ability to crash very quickly. But you can't have one without the other, you see. So we are always either growing or diminishing, but rarely standing still. Hence, as we grow, we are always at the same time dealing with past crashes, which haunt us. And, being at a low or middle stage of development, not that far above the animals, our crashes are frequent and horrendous, and our memory of them is recent. We are like a puppy just learning to walk, but with a much better memory than the puppy. Which is why I imagine the gods have special pity for us. They have not cursed us or damned us to this place. Just the opposite in fact. We are overwatched and tended lovingly, for if we were not the planet would have crumbled into absolute chaos long ago.

The gods are often blamed for allowing the Earth to be such a hellhole, but surely most of you have occasionally thought the opposite. I know that when I look around me, I am amazed not at how bad things are, but even now how good. As just the easiest example, I have never understood how the freeways are not clogged with huge piles of wrecks everyday. Given what we know people are, you would expect your average person to be in about ten crashes a day. In a major city, that average person should not last a week on the highways. So, you can either blame the gods for the 45,000 deaths per year in cars in the US, or you can thank them for the billions of non-deaths every year, that could have happened but didn't. You will say that if they could prevent billions, they could prevent them all, which may be true. I suppose we all have a destined end, and some of us are in a car when that time arrives.

In conclusion, although you may fear a Mordor scenario in the near future, frankly I do not. It didn't happen after 911, didn't happen after Ebola, and won't happen after this or 5G. These people are not capable of that sort of control, since they aren't even capable of the current levels. And if they were, I don't believe the gods would allow it. What they have proved themselves capable of is shooting themselves in the foot over and over, while making things more and more inconvenient for us. I for one am happy to accept the added temporary inconvenience if it means that they will graduate from shooting off their own feet to shooting off their own legs. At that point maybe they will realize the path they are on simply isn't worth walking.

I want to tack on a comment about “social distancing”, one of the most perverse and transparent gambits they have ever come up with. My readers spotted this one immediately as a continuation of the split-the-sexes project, whereby people are separated from one another on purpose, creating all sorts of anxieties that then require drugging and many other sorts of compensation. Lonely miserable people spend far more money than happy couples, and not just on drugs.

But this new social distancing thing serves double duty, since the governors hope it will keep people from talking face-to-face. If they aren't talking face-to-face, it is hoped that most talk of push-back or other revolution will be squelched. You see, they want you quiet, but if you have to talk, they want you online or on the phone, where they can track you and control you. They figure you will self-police online, since you know many others are listening. While you might feel free to say what you think face-to-face, online you will develop a persona, and the persona of most people online is one of anonymity and reserve. No one is going to seriously talk revolution online, because that would be stupid. Plus, online they can surround you with huge levels of noise. Whatever you say or wherever you say it, they can hire thousands of people to show up and drown it out with misdirection, lies, and other confusion.

So, one sort of specific revolution I am not afraid to call for right now is for you to very conspicuously ignore this social distancing recommendation. Do not stay home, do not distance yourself from people, and do not obey illegal orders from your government, federal or local. The Constitution cannot be suspended and has not been, and according to that you have the right to assembly. This current scare is just a bluff, and they know it is unenforceable, which is why they are trying to get you to police yourselves. They want you doing all this voluntarily, but I very strongly recommend you don't. That is what Neil Tyson's admission was all about: it is a test to see if you will voluntarily give up your rights, and how far they can push you in that. Can they get you to lockdown yourselves, without even passing a law? Tell them no. If fact, this is a great time to disobey orders from police concerning these things, since those orders would have no legal backing. If you got arrested and had to spend any time in jail, you would have the perfect excuse for a lawsuit, by which you could make very good money. If they rough you up, you can make even more. You could live for a decade on your proceeds from such a thing, so just remember that.

If you own a business like a restaurant and you have been told to shut down, don't do it without a court order or a definite legal writ. The request is just a request, and beyond that is a bluff. If they threaten you with further action, tell them to get to it. It won't happen, because there is no legal authority behind any of this. And if it does happen, you can sue later and live on that the rest of your life.

You may think I am way out on a limb here, but you may be interested to know that former Congressman Ron Paul is saying pretty much the same thing. The difference is, Paul concedes that corona may have killed 100 people in the US. I don't concede that it has killed any. Corona, defined as some new dangerous strain they are calling COVID19, is totally manufactured. And I don't mean manufactured in a lab. I mean manufactured on paper, and played out on a stage. I concede that some old people are dying of respiratory problems from flu symptoms, but they always are. It is nothing new. The fact is, corona strains have been around for a long time, and these strains almost always work in tandem. Furthermore, it is impossible to determine which of a multitude of strains caused the death. These new deaths are assigned to corona simply to fit the script, which is why I say the numbers have no medical basis. As Paul admits, they are massaged from the ground up, and this scare has nothing to do with preventing the spread of disease and everything to do with abetting the intentional spread of fear. Do not allow this to succeed. Do not be afraid. I'm not. Be angry.

http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

Does the 2019 Coronavirus Exist?

David Crowe David.Crowe@theinfectiousmyth.com Version 6. March 12, 2020

Introduction

http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

The Coronavirus scare that emanated from Wuhan, China in December of 2019 is an epidemic of testing. There is no proof that a virus is being detected by the test and there is absolutely no concern about whether there are a significant number of false positives on the test. What is being published in medical journals is not science, every paper has the goal of enhancing the panic by interpreting the data only in ways that benefit the viral theory, even when the data is confusing or contradictory. In other words, the medical papers are propaganda.

It is also an epidemic by definition. The definition, which assumes perfection from the test, does not have the safety valve that the definition of SARS did, thus the scare can go on until public health officials change the definition or realize that the test is not reliable.

What I learned from studying SARS, the previous big coronavirus scare, after the 2003 epidemic, was that nobody had proved a coronavirus existed, let alone was pathogenic. There was evidence against transmission, and afterwards, negative assessments of the extreme treatments that patients were subjected to, the nucleoside analog antiviral drug Ribavirin, high dose corticosteroids, invasive respiratory assistance, and sometimes oseltamivir (Tamiflu). This is documented in my draft book chapter (mostly complete) that you can find here: http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/SARS.pdf

Executive Summary

The world is suffering from a massive delusion based on the belief that a test for RNA is a test for a deadly new virus, a virus that has emerged from wild bats in China, supported by the western assumption that Chinese people will eat anything that moves.

If the virus exists, then it should be possible to purify viral particles. From these particles RNA can be extracted and should match the RNA used in this test. Until this is done it is possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the cells of the patient, bacteria, fungi etc. There might be an association with elevated levels of RNA and illness, but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus. Without

1 Officially the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it is believed to caused, COVID-19. We will just refer to coronavirus for the current virus panic, and SARS for the 2003 panic. purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present. Definitions of important diseases are surprisingly loose, perhaps embarrassingly so. A couple of symptoms, maybe contact with a previous patient, and a test of unknown accuracy, is all you often need. While the definition of SARS, an earlier coronavirus panic, was self-limiting, the definition of the new coronavirus disease is open-ended, allowing the imaginary epidemic to grow. Putting aside the existence of the virus, if the coronavirus test has a problem with false positives (as all biological tests do) then testing an uninfected population will produce positive tests, and the definition of the disease will allow the epidemic to go on forever.

This strange new disease, officially named COVID-19, has none of its own symptoms. Fever and cough, previously lamed on uncountable viruses and bacteria, as well as environmental contaminants, are most common, as well as abnormal lung images, despite those being found in healthy people. Yet, despite the fact that only a minority of people tested will test positive (often less than 5%), it is assumed that this disease is easily recognized. If that was the truly the case, the majority of people routed for testing by doctors should be positive.

The coronavirus test is based on PCR, a manufacturing technique. When used as a test it does not produce a positive/negative result, but simply the number of cycles required to detect genetic material. The division between positive and negative is an arbitrary number of cycles chosen by the testers. If positive means infected and negative means uninfected, then there are cases of people going from infected to uninfected and back to infected again in a couple of days.

A lot of people say it is better to be safe than sorry. Better that some people are quarantined who are actually uninfected than risk a pandemic. But once people test positive, they are likely to be treated, with treatments similar to SARS. Doctors faced with what they believe is a deadly virus treat for the future, for anticipated symptoms, not for what they see today. This leads to the use of invasive

oxygenation, high dose corticosteroids and antiviral drugs. In this case, some populations of those diagnosed (e.g. in China) are older and sicker than the general population and much less able to withstand aggressive treatment. After the SARS panic had subsided doctors reviewed the evidence, and it showed that these treatments were often ineffective, and all had serious side effects, such as persistent neurologic deficit, joint replacements, scarring, pain and liver disease.

Virus Existence

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 same problem still 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 microvesicles that look very similar to HIV under an electron microscope, but are of cellular origin.[5][6]

Disease Definition

Infectious diseases always have a definition, but they are usually not publicized too widely because then they would be open to ridicule. They usually have a “suspect case” category based on symptoms and exposure, and a “confirmed” category that adds some kind of testing.

Reference [13] describes a suspect case definition, based on WHO definitions for SARS and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) that was in effect until January 18, 2020, and required all four of the following criteria:

• “fever, with or without recorded temperature”. Note that there is no universal definition of fever, so this may just be the opinion of a physician or nurse. With SARS a fever was defined as 38C even though normal body temperature is considered to be 37C (98.6F).

• “radiographic evidence of pneumonia”. This can occur without illness, as was seen in [3] – a 10 year old boy with no clinical symptoms. He was diagnosed with pneumonia in the absence of symptoms.

• “low or normal white-cell count or low lymphocyte count”. This is not really a criterion as every healthy person is included. This is also strange because people suffering from an infection normally have elevated white blood cell counts (although they may drop in people dying from an infection).

• One of the following three:

o “no reduction in symptoms after antimicrobial treatment for 3 days”. This is a standard indication of a ‘viral’ pneumonia, i.e. one that does not resolve with antibiotics.

o “epidemiologic link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market”. This, and the next criterion, create the illusion of an infectious disease, as it prefers the diagnosis of connected cases.

o “contact with other patients with similar symptoms”.

On January 18th the last, three-part category was changed to:

• One of the following:

o “travel history to Wuhan”

o “direct contact with patients from Wuhan who had fever or

respiratory symptoms, within 14 days before illness onset”

The big problem is that, in contrast to the definition for SARS, a “confirmed case” did not originally require the criteria for a suspect case to be met. A “confirmed case” simply required a positive RNA test, without any symptoms or possibility of contact with previous cases, illustrating total faith in the PCR technology used in the test.

The World Health Organization definition [15] has the same flaw.

It was the fact that the SARS definition required both a reasonable possibility of contact with a previous case, and symptoms, that allowed the epidemic to burn out. Once everyone was quarantined, new cases were highly unlikely, testing stopped, and doctors could declare victory.

The Chinese eventually woke up and, around February 16th required confirmed cases to meet the requirements for a suspected case, as well as a positive test. They may have put this new definition into practice earlier because after a massive addition of almost 16,000 confirmed cases on February 12th, the number fell dramatically each day and, by February 18th was under 500 cases, and continued to stay low.

But other countries did not learn. Korea, Japan and Italy (and perhaps other countries) have started doing tests on people with no epidemiological link, encouraging people with the vague symptoms that are part of the definition to come to hospital to get checked, and obviously following up with asymptomatic people with a connection to anybody who tests positive. Consequently, in mid to late February, cases in those countries started to skyrocket.

A New Disease?

COVID-19, to use its formal name, is described as a distinct new disease. But it clearly is not. There are no distinctive symptoms, for a start. Reference [2] showed that, among 41 early cases, the only symptoms found in more than half, were fever (98%) and cough (76%). 98% had CT Scan imaging showing problems in both lungs (although it is possible to have shadowing on a CT scan without symptoms). The high percentage of cases with fever and shadowing in both lungs is an artefact of the disease definition, fever and “radiographic evidence of pneumonia” are two of the diagnostic criteria for a probable case.

The low rate of people testing positive on the coronavirus testing is further evidence that there are no obvious symptoms. If there were recognizable symptoms, doctors should have a better than 4% chance of guessing who has the virus. While some of the people may have been tested, without symptoms, because they were on a flight or cruise, countries outside China are encouraging people with the vague symptoms that exist to check in to a hospital, so increasingly people have symptoms of the flu or pneumonia, and are still testing negative in high numbers.

For example, as of March 9th, Korea had found 7,382 positive cases out of 179,160 people tested (4.1%) [20]. In Washington State, where they appear to be reluctant to test anyone, only 1 out of 27 tested by February 24th had tested positive (3.7%) [21]. Perhaps if they had tested all 438 who were then under quarantine, the epidemic would have exploded from 1 to about 16 cases (3.7% of 438). By March 9th, 1,246 tests had been performed with 136 found positive (11%). Obviously, in neither location can doctors recognize cases clinically.

Testing

Assuming, for a moment, the existence of a new coronavirus, what would a coronavirus test tell us, at this stage? Or rather, what does it not tell us?

• 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’s worse if you restrict the test to people with symptoms, because then the flaws in the test will not be revealed for much 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. It spreads panic, it can put people on dangerous medications, other circumstances of their treatment can be physically and psychologically damaging (such as intubation and isolation, and even seeing all the doctors and nurses in special suits emphasizing how deathly sick you are).

False Negatives – Big Problem

According to an article in the South China Morning Post [23], Li Yan, head of the diagnostic center at the People’s Hospital of Wuhan University, noted on Chinese state TV that because of the multi-step process, an error at any stage could result in an incorrect outcome, and Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, also on CCTV, said the accuracy is only 30 to 50 percent.

Wang Chen really means, however, that the test is only ever falsely negative, and never falsely positive. In a paper documenting a cluster of illness and positives tests in a family [3], this bias is clear, as most patients had more negative tests than positive tests, but were considered positive anyway. Patient 1 had 3/11 positive (27%), patient 2 had 5/11 (45%), patient 3 had all 18 negative, patient 4 had 4/14 (29%), patient 5 had 4/17 (24%) and patient 7 was the only with a majority positive (64%).

The only way to decide logically and scientifically is to have a gold standard for presence of the virus, which can only be purification and characterization. Since this has never been accomplished, doctors get to make decisions on the fly, always leaning towards treating patients as infected.

False Positives – Best Evidence

The major attempt to define the false positive rate was in a paper describing a new test methodology, but it has a built-in conflict of interest [19]. Clearly, if the false positive rate was high, the authors’ aim to “develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings”, would have failed.

They did, however, do more than most. They took 297 samples of nasal and throat

secretions from biobanks and tested them, only finding “weak initial reactivity” in

four samples which, upon retesting, disappeared. The problem with this kind of analysis is that biobank samples may not have been obtained in the same way as samples from live people in an epidemic panic. The sampling was also not blinded, something that is necessary to eliminate the possibility of unconscious bias (a real problem in medicine). Furthermore, many samples in people believed to be infected are negative, and multiple samples are tested, as described for the family cluster paper.

In sum, testing 297 samples could, at best, show that the false positive rate was

1/300, but because multiple samples are often taken, with any one positive sample over-ruling all the negatives the false positive rate could be considerably less, as the biobank samples were only tested once.

And, even if this test did have a false positive rate that was very low, it is not clear that this particular test is in use, and the false positive rate cannot be extrapolated to any other test design.

Even a small false positive rate is critically important. A 99% accurate test would produce 100,000 false positives in a city of 10 million, like Wuhan. And if the number of positives in sampling is around 4% (which it appears to be from early statistics), then 1 out of 4 positives would be false.

Positive, Negative, Positive Again – Confusion

Some people have fully recovered from illness blamed on coronavirus, started to test negative, and then tested positive again. According to a news report [22] patients are not considered cured in China until they no longer have symptoms, have clear lungs, and have two negative coronavirus tests. Despite this, 14% of discharged patients later tested positive, but with no relapse of symptoms. This is very difficult to explain if the test is for a virus, much easier to explain if the RNA that the test is looking for is not viral in origin.

Other reports2:

• (Jan 31) A women returning to Canada from China tested negative while “mildly ill” after arriving in Canada, but later tested positive.

• (Feb 11) A sick woman in Wuhan tested negative on her first test, after days

of illness, but positive on the second.

• (Feb 16) An 83-year old American woman was screened as disease free after

leaving a cruise ship but tested positive twice after arrival in Malaysia. Ironically, her husband had pneumonia, but tested negative. Nobody on the ship was sick, nor had travelled to mainland China recently.

• (Mar 1) Newsweek reported an American man tested negative upon return from Wuhan, China, without any symptoms. But later he was “weakly positive” and was returned to quarantine.

2 References are available upon request. Dates are of the report.

Negative, Negative, Negative

A group of doctors in Marseille, France, working in a very experienced lab, that regularly does testing for respiratory viruses, reported testing 4,084 samples for the novel coronavirus, using several systems approved for use in Europe, without a single positive [25]. This included 337 people returning from China who were tested twice, and 32 people referred because of suspected coronavirus infection.

It is statistically improbable that this lab was just lucky to not get any coronavirus cases, it is more likely that they used more stringent criteria, illustrating that the performance of not just test kits, but labs, with this new test, is completely unknown. Yet, a positive test remains unquestioned in every case.

Test Experience

A paper from Singapore by doctors and public health officials provides a revealing look at the inner guts of coronavirus testing. Hidden away in the supplementary material of reference [24], where few people will see it, it exposes some important issues with tests:

• The test is not binary (negative/positive) and has an arbitrary cutoff.

• The quantity of RNA does not correlate with illness.

• If negative means uninfected and positive means infected, then people went from infected to uninfected and back again, sometimes several times.

• Results below the cutoff are not shown, are treated as negative, but if PCR

continued past the cutoff and was eventually positive, would indicate presence of small quantities of the RNA which is supposedly unique to the coronavirus.

Before you read beyond the following figure, ask yourself why the first 6 graphs, shown deliberately out of numerical order, are separated. What are the visual differences between those 6 and the remainder? Do this right away so my interpretation does not bias your opinion.

The Test is Not Binary

Tests for infections are usually reported as positive or negative (sometimes ‘reactive’ and ‘unreactive’. One of the reasons for this is that, in many cases, multiple tests are required, and it is common to conclude that someone is infected with some negative tests and that someone is uninfected with some positive tests. The results of a complex multi-test algorithm are also usually reported as positive or negative, but interpreted by doctors and patients as infected or uninfected. The former could mean isolation, special medications, special precautions for health care workers and more.

But, in reality even individual tests are not binary, not positive or negative, but a range of numbers that are arbitrarily divided into positive on one side and negative on the other. Possibly there is a grey area that allows other factors, including the bias of the doctor or laboratory, to enter into the interpretation, or that will require further testing.

Understanding RT-PCR

Before we continue it is important to understand what RT-PCR, the PCR test technology is. It is based on PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) technology. This is a DNA manufacturing technique invented by the iconoclastic Kary Mullis, who received a Chemistry Nobel for it in 1993. It may be the most important technology in the biotech industry. Starting with one DNA strand, the strand is cleaved (split in two) and then complementary strands are allowed to grow, the same process that occurs in a cell during mitosis (cell division).

So far, not so impressive, but through the magic of doubling, if this process is repeated only 32 times you will end up with about 4 billion identical strands of DNA. Each round of doubling is referred to as a cycle.

One important issue is that we are talking about a testing technique, and using a manufacturing technique. PCR for manufacturing DNA normally starts with one or more strands (i) and ideally ends up with i•2n strands after n cycles. For example, if you started with one DNA strand, after 32 cycles you would have 4 billion.

To use PCR as a test, you assume that you are starting with an unknown number of strands and end up with an exponential multiple after n cycles. From the quantity of materials at termination the starting quantity can be estimated. A major problem with this is that because PCR is an exponential (doubling) process, errors also grow exponentially.

The second problem is that the Coronavirus is believed to be composed of RNA, but this can be solved by converting all RNA into DNA with the Reverse Transcriptase enzyme at the start of the process.

The technology, after these two adaptations, is known as RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase PCR).

Now you have the information necessary to understand the numbers from 20-40 on the vertical axis of the graphs above. These are the number of cycles. It implies that it always took at least 20 PCR cycles before any RNA could be detected, and they stopped after a maximum of 37 cycles. The blue line is at cycle 38, and the black dots do not mean RNA was detected after 38 cycles (as clarified in the paper), but that it wasn’t detected by 37 cycles, and so the process terminated. This “Serial Cycle Threshold (Ct)” was the arbitrary definition of a negative result by the authors of reference [24].

We can see that it was arbitrary, because in another paper, reference [13], the authors had two end points: 37 and 40. Anything less than 37 was considered positive and anything 40 or greater was defined as negative. The in-between values were re-tested and re-interpreted. Note that this paper would treat 37 as indeterminate but the Singapore paper would treat it as positive.

RNA Quantity does not Correlate with Illness

Theoretically the PCR cycle number at which DNA is detectable tells us the relative quantity of RNA. Whatever initial amount was necessary to be detectable on the 20th cycle, 21 cycles would be doubly sensitive, and could detect about half as much, and 30 cycles about 1000th as much as 21. One could therefore expect sicker people to have more virus, and thus to have a lower cycle number on testing.

This is the reason the authors separated out the first six graphs from the remaining twelve. The first six were the people who were sick enough to require oxygen. But one can clearly see from the graph that the six sicker people did not have distinctly higher quantities of RNA.

Positive to Negative and Back Again

The majority of the 18 patients had a positive test, followed by a negative test, followed by a positive test. Some had this several times.

If a negative test means uninfected, then this is impossible. You cannot rid yourself of the virus, and then be reinfected the next day, and then infected the day after and uninfected again.

The simplest answer to this conundrum is that negative tests do not mean uninfected. But the corollary is that positive tests do not mean infected. Which would make the test worthless.

Results Below the Cutoff

The authors of reference [24] apparently programmed the PCR machine to stop after 37 cycles if no DNA had been detected. This means that we don’t have information on when or if the process would have terminated by the detection of if it had been allowed to continue. More importantly, what would it mean if DNA was detected on cycle 38 or 40 or 80? If the DNA is unique to the virus there is no other possible interpretation than that the person is infected. But it is possible that everyone would eventually detect enough DNA detected, which could only be interpreted as the corresponding RNA being endogenous (i.e. formed within the cells of the human body).

Given that several people bounced back from negative to positive again, one could argue that the cutoff should be lower than 37. But likely if this was done many more people might test positive, and even with a cutoff of, say, 40, going to negative and back again might still occur.

Transmission

There is lots of evidence that the virus is not as transmissible as is being implied. (January 2) “27 (66%) [of 41 early] patients had direct exposure to Huanan seafood market [i.e. about 1/3 did not]”. [2].

(January 1-20) “Of the 99 patients with 2019-nCoV pneumonia, 49 (49%) had a history of exposure to the Huanan seafood market.” [10] [i.e. 51% did not]

(January 1-January 22) A larger survey, including all the first 425 cases, showed that of those diagnosed January 1st or later, 72% had “No exposure to either market or person with respiratory symptoms”. [13]

“The symptom onset date of the first patient identified was Dec 1, 2019. None of his family members developed fever or any respiratory symptoms. No epidemiological link was found between the first patient and later cases.” [2] (of the family cluster) “None of the family members had contacts with Wuhan markets or animals…They had no history of contact with animals, visits to markets including the Huanan seafood wholesale market in Wuhan, or eating game meat in restaurants.” [3]

Transmission 1 – The Shenzhen Family Cluster

Reference [3] attempts to show the ease with which the virus could be transmitted in a family that travelled from Shenzhen, near Hong Kong, to Wuhan in December, and then back again about a week later.

Two grandparents (patients 1 and 2), the daughter and son-in-law (patients 3 and 4), a 10-year old grandson and a 7-year old granddaughter (patients 5 and 6) flew to Wuhan on December 29th. On the first day, the grandmother (1) and her daughter (3) visited a baby boy with pneumonia, known as Relative 1, in a hospital in Wuhan (the hospital is not named, but the implication is that this child had this new disease). Outside of this they mingled with four other local relatives, of which two had also spent extensive time in the hospital. Notably the infant’s symptoms resolved one or two days after the visit, and he returned home.

On day four of the visit (January 1st), the son-in-law, who had not gone to the hospital got sick. On this basis, they declared that the coronavirus had a very short incubation time, and that people were almost immediately infectious. There’s no evidence for this, except nothing else can support their hypothesis that the hospitalized baby had this new coronavirus, infected Patients 1 (grandmother) and 3 (daughter), one of which then infected the son-in-law (Patient 4). All in four days. Then, like dominoes, the other visitors got sick, the daughter one day after her husband (Jan 2), the grandmother the next day (Jan 3), and then the grandfather and Relatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Jan 4). The family appeared to have a history of being frequently ill. In this case symptoms were mostly fever, cough and weakness.

On January 4th the whole family returned to Shenzhen. Note that the grandchildren, patients 5 and 6, had no symptoms during their time in Wuhan, or after returning home.

On January 9th, the grandparents and their daughter attended a clinic in Shenzhen, and the next day the grandparents visited the big hospital (University of Hong Kong- Shenzhen Hospital) for tests. The daughter followed one day later (January 10th).

The grandparents had significant pre-existing health conditions, such as having been treated for brain cancer (grandmother) and hypertension (both). In Wuhan they both suffered from fever, dry cough, weakness, and later were found to have various lab abnormalities. They were genuinely sick.

Concern that they were infected with the new coronavirus is probably the reason why the rest of the family were brought in over the next few days for testing. The daughter and son-in-law were still sick (diarrhea, congestion, sore throat, chest pain) but by then had a normal body temperature (even lower than). They did have some lung opacities on a CT scan so were diagnosed with pneumonia despite the normal temperature.

The grandson had been a bad boy (patient 5) and had refused to wear a mask in Wuhan, so the parents insisted he get a CT scan. Despite the complete lack of symptoms, he also had lung opacities, and so was also diagnosed with pneumonia, albeit completely asymptomatic.

The granddaughter was a good girl (patient 6), and had worn a mask, and so nobody was surprised that she was not only asymptomatic, but also did not have lung abnormalities.

All six patients (apparently including patient 6 who was healthy in all ways) were tested using the new RNA test. Not surprisingly, the grandparents tested positive on nose swabs and serum samples. The son-in-law tested positive on nose and throat samples. But the daughter, Patient 3, despite doing 18 tests, more than anyone else, stubbornly tested negative on each one. But, showing shocking bias, the authors concluded, “she was still regarded as an infected case because she was strongly epidemiologically linked to the Wuhan hospital exposure and radiologically showing multifocal ground-glass lung opacities.” Another indication of bias was the omission of test results for Patient 6, who also tested similarly tested negative every time (but based on only four samples, according to personal correspondence from the authors). In this case the bias was clearly to classify her as uninfected.

The bad grandson (patient 5) also tested positive on nose, throat and sputum samples, despite having no symptoms of illness.

Additionally, there was a relative who did not travel to Wuhan (Patient 7), who got sick with back pain and weakness four days after everyone returned to Shenzhen and, when she was tested, she also tested positive for RNA (nose, throat and sputum).

Several of the relatives who lived in Wuhan also got sick afterwards, but no

coronavirus test information was provided in this paper.

No consideration was given to other causes for illness, such as exposure to food contaminated by chemicals, food that was prepared in anticipation of their visit, that was left out too long, or in unsanitary conditions. The purpose of reference [3] appears to have been to prove that the putative coronavirus is infectious, not to try to disprove it (which is what good scientists should do). Note that the relatives visited each other a lot over a few days, that was indeed the purpose of the trip, and one can guess that they ate more than usual, ate richer and more exotic foods (but not exotic animals) and perhaps drank more than usual. But none of this was investigated.

Transmission 2 – The German Connection

Reference [9] attempts to connect the illness of some Germans, one of whom met with a Chinese woman, who afterwards was diagnosed positive on the RNA test.

The sequence of events started between January 20th and 22nd when a woman from Shanghai and a local German were in meetings together. Both were healthy at the time. The woman flew back to China on January 22nd and started to feel sick on the flight home. The German also got sick (sore throat, chills, muscle pain, fever, cough), late on the 24th, and did not return to work until the 27th. By coincidence, this was the same day that the Shanghai woman informed the German company that she had been sick and had tested positive for coronavirus RNA. By this time the German man had recovered without any special medicines or interventions, but he tested positive, and so did three other colleagues who had contact with him, or the Shanghai woman, or both. It is logical that everyone who had any contact with them was tested, and likely no employees who did not have contact were tested. The paper does not say how many tested negative, and whether any of those testing negative had similar symptoms.

The article claims that all four Germans had symptoms starting on the 24th, 26th, or 27th, but what those symptoms were is not detailed for three not in the meeting with the Chinese woman. The article does note that, “so far, none of the four confirmed patients show signs of severe clinical illness”.

If the purpose of the paper was to support the idea that this illness is transmissible, it is important to accept the four positive tests on Germans as true positives, despite the fact that none of them had “severe clinical illness”. This, however, calls into question the severity of the illness, and why heroic and dangerous medical measures are needed. Because the Germans did not find out about their positive RNA test until after their period of symptoms, they probably only had to suffer quarantine, and not antiviral drugs, steroids or invasive respiratory assistance, which might have happened if they had shown up at an emergency department with symptoms and had been diagnosed with the 2019 coronavirus at the same time.

An alternative explanation is that the coronavirus is deadly, but that these four Germans represent four false positive tests. If this is the case, the usefulness of the test must be questioned.

Note that the fact that all the people with positive tests and symptoms had contact is not surprising if testing was limited to people who had contact.

Transmission 3 – Magical

Numerous newspaper articles have noted cases outside China (where individual cases were still newsworthy) that had no known contact with another case, or travel to an endemic region (notably Wuhan)3:

• (Feb 2) An 80 year old Hong Kong man tested positive after hospital admission due to a fever, but his only recent trip to mainland China was a brief visit to Shenzhen, just outside Hong Kong (over 1000km from Wuhan by car). He had no contact with other cases, markets with live animals or wild animals.

• (Feb 13) A Japanese woman in her 80s tested positive after death. Her son-in-law, a taxi driver, also tested positive. He had not travelled to the affected 3 I am not including references for this section due to the sheer number, but I’m happy to provide them to anyone who is interested. Dates are of the news reports, the cases were probably identified earlier. parts of China and denied having carried any foreign customers in the two weeks before testing positive.

• (Feb 16) An 82-year old man in Seoul, Korea, had no record of overseas travel or contact with other positive testing people.

• (Feb 17) Three men in Aichi, Chiba and Hokkaido prefectures in Japan have no infection routes identified.

• (Feb 18) A 61-year-old woman described as a “superspreader” was the first person diagnosed in her highly populated region of South Korea, with no known contacts or travel to explain her case. She was blamed for spreading the infection to 37 other people, but this may just be an artefact of the size of the church. She had 1,160 “contacts” (presumably mainly members of her congregation), and so the fraction of cases among her contacts is 3.3%, lower than the rate of positive tests seen overall in South Korea.

• (Feb 22) Two cases in Chiba prefecture, Japan, had no relationship with each other, or any contact with other cases or a relevant travel history.

• (Feb 22) Director-General of WHO says that “cases with no clear epidemiological link, such as travel history to China or contact with a confirmed case” are a concern.

• (Feb 24) In Lombardy, Italy, none of the early patients had been to China or had contact with another case.

• (Feb 27) After a hospital in Vienna, Austria, decided to test everyone with compatible symptoms, a 72-year old man tested positive. He had no known route of infection, had already been in the hospital 10 days, and none of his contacts were ill or infected.

• (Feb 27) An 88-year old man in San Marino (Duchy within Italy) tested positive, but an investigation showed he had not travelled abroad, nor to the ‘red’ areas of Italy where other cases have been found.

• (Feb 28) An Oregon resident became the first positive case with no known history of travel to affected countries or contact with infected individuals.

• (Mar 2) El Pais reported that at least five positive cases in Torrejón de Ardoz, near Madrid, had not travelled to any country considered a risk, not had contact with any other patient.

• (Mar 6) British Columbia, Canada reports a positive case with no recent travel history and no known contact with another patient.

Proving Transmission

It is impossible, in most cases, to prove that someone did have contact with another coronavirus case, even if they did travel to Wuhan and visit the Huanan market. In the best case it will be possible that someone was in the vicinity of someone who tested positive earlier, but that does not constitute proof that they were exposed to the virus, let alone that it was that person who infected them. In most cases, even if someone was in Wuhan, there will be no evidence that a person was in contact with another victim.

Fundamentally, this belief that it is contact that causes positive tests is necessary to preserve the infectious paradigm. Therefore, the slightest evidence of an association between an old case and a new case (such as having been in the same city at the same time) is taken as proof of transmission, when it is obviously not.

Preserve the test

Overall, it seems that test results must be interpreted to preserve the coronavirus theory. No alternative interpretation is allowed. And when there is an inconsistency, it must be ignored or explained away, often invoking imaginary data:

• As mentioned above, in Reference [3] the daughter, important in the chain of transmission of a family, was interpreted as a false negative. Alternatively it could have been concluded that this woman did not have the coronavirus, but that would have badly damaged the family transmission story, and left open other reasons for the cluster of illnesses (and CT scan abnormalities).

• Also in Reference [3] the grandson tested positive without any symptoms at all, except lung abnormalities on a CT scan. This allowed them to declare him as ill (asymptomatic pneumonia). But he could have been an asymptomatic case or a false positive.

• A woman who returned from China to her Canadian university with illness, first tested negative, and then positive. This was interpreted as indicating that she had very little virus in her body at the time of the first test, and that the test was not sensitive enough. However, PCR testing is extraordinarily sensitive, and if she had so little virus, how was it that she had symptoms? An alternative explanation is that she became positive on the test in Canada, perhaps because this virus is actually quite common, or because the test is not for a virus, but is just measuring RNA created by the human body in response to disease conditions.[8]

• The four Germans [9] could be seen as showing that the RNA test produces false positives or that the illness produced by the virus is often not severe. But it will be interpreted as neither by dogmatic promoters of the coronavirus theory, it simply will not be mentioned now that the main message, that the virus is infectious, is bolstered by the evidence.

• Out of 206 Japanese evacuated from Wuhan, only three tested positive, and two were found to have “no symptoms”. Instead of considering them false positives, they are considered infected and possibly infectious.[12]

• Of 6 positive cases in Singapore reported in [14], the first had a sore throat and cough, but no pneumonia, the second and third had undescribed symptoms, and the last three had no symptoms.

Treatment

There is a strong correlation between the amount of panic (and there is certainly a lot of that in this case) and the potency of drugs being used. And this can be very dangerous. As a report commissioned by WHO after SARS was over said,

“Despite an extensive literature reporting on SARS treatments, it was not possible to determine whether treatments benefited patients during the SARS outbreak. Some may have been harmful …Of patients treated with ribavirin, 49/138 to 67/110 (36%–61%) developed haemolytic anaemia, a recognised complication with this drug, although it is not possible to rule out the possibility that SARS-CoV infection caused the haemolytic anaemia, as there is no control group. One study noted that over 29% of SARS patients had some degree of liver dysfunction indicated by ALT levels higher than normal, and the number of patients with this complication increased to over 75% after ribavirin treatment…In the Chinese literature, we found 14 reports in which steroids were used. Twelve studies were inconclusive and two showed possible harm. One study reported diabetes onset associated with methylprednisolone treatment. Another study (an uncontrolled, retrospective study of 40 SARS patients) reported avascular necrosis and osteoporosis among corticosteroid-treated SARS patients [which resulted in many joint replacements, particularly in Hong Kong]”[7]

The treatment of what is seen as a new disease is aggressive but does not appear to be as aggressive as SARS, perhaps due to the greater size of the epidemic putting pressure on drug supplies. Ribavirin is not being used, and doctors are more cautious with steroids (only 22% of the patients in [2] and 19% in [10] received them, although dosages are similar to those given to SARS patients). A paper documenting 99 “confirmed” coronavirus patients [10], reported that 76% were receiving antivirals, already including AIDS drugs lopinavir and ritonavir, along with oseltamivir and ganciclovir, but does not indicate how many were getting each antiviral, let alone how much and for how long.

At the beginning of February 2020, the Chinese government announced a trial of a new Gilead antiviral drug, originally planned for Ebola, remdesivir, which, previously, “may have helped alleviate the symptoms of a 35-year-old male” diagnosed with a coronavirus infection in the US [15]. The drug was going to be trialed on 270 people, although it is not clear whether there will be a placebo or comparison group. A Chinese chemistry professor, Jiang Xuefeng, warned “No random, controlled, or blank samples were used in [its previous use in an American man]…The effectiveness of remdesivir cannot be determined by this single case…It can take years to fully understand the pharmacological and toxicological side effects of new drugs.”

A Japanese hospital is testing the anti-influenza medication Avigan (Favipiravir) on one patient.

Reference [10] did indicate greater caution with respiratory assistance, only 13% were given a face mask for extra oxygen, and only 4% were subjected to invasive ventilation.

Apart from having pneumonia, and often being subject to potent drugs, many of the patients have other health problems, and are therefore much weaker than average. For example, “50 (51%) patients had chronic diseases, including cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, endocrine system disease, digestive system disease, respiratory system disease, malignant tumour, and nervous system disease”[10].

They are also older than average, “The average age of the patients was 55.5 years, including 67 men and 32 women”[10]. Only about 12% of the Chinese population are 55 or over [11]. In a later study [13], the median age was 59, and only about 10% of Chinese are this age or older. In the last of three time periods of this study, January 12th through 22nd, the median age had crept up to 61.

Combine old age, pre-existing health conditions, pneumonia and powerful drugs, and you have a recipe for another iatrogenic disaster.

These drugs are sometimes described as “experimental”, but that is a misnomer, and disguises the fact that they are not used in the context of science. It is clearly not science when there is no placebo, no blinding, and no randomization. It is likely that sicker patients will be prescribed untested drugs, if they have a health decline it will be blamed on the virus, and nobody could know what would have happened if they had received standard medical treatment for their symptoms. If the patient survives it will likely be considered a success, and is worth millions, or more, in public relations to an antiviral drug that has not yet found a market.

Treatment Experience

It is not surprising that summaries of experience with treatment tend to come out after an epidemic is over, when doctors have time to go through the copious records that will be taken, and see if they can determine whether the treatments had any impact on the markers of the disease or on the health of the patient. Since it is almost certain that there was no control, it will be impossible to distinguish between a patient who recovered on their own despite the treatment, and one who was saved by the treatment. However, useful information on adverse events and disease markers can be obtained.

The first such report that I am aware of came from Singapore [24]. They reported on 18 patients, of which only five received antiviral medications, chosen from six who required supplemental oxygen. This is a sign of some restraint.

The doctors used the AIDS drugs Lopinavir and Ritonavir, often marketed as the combination pill Kaletra. For two of the patients they reported a reduction of oxygen requirements within 3 days, and for two they started to get negative coronavirus tests (not the same two). So far, so good, although it is impossible to claim this is due to the drugs, and it was only a minority of the patients.

The bad news is that two patients, “deteriorated and experienced progressive respiratory failure while receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, with 1 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation”. And these two patients continued to produce positive coronavirus tests. Furthermore 3 out of 5 patients “developed abnormal liver function test results” and 4 out of 5, “developed nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea”. In total, only one of the five was able to complete the planned 14-day course of antiviral drugs.

It is of course not possible to prove that the drugs produced these side effects, as there was no control. However, liver problems, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea are common with AIDS drugs.

Conclusions

The coronavirus panic is just that, an irrational panic, based on an unproven RNA test, that has never been connected to a virus. And which won’t be connected to a virus unless the virus is purified. Furthermore, even if the test can detect a novel virus the presence of a virus is not proof that it is the cause of the severe symptoms that some people who test positive experience (but not all who test positive). Finally, even if the test can detect a virus, and it is dangerous, we do not know what the rate of false positives is. And even a 1% false positive rate could produce 100,000 false positive results just in a city the size of Wuhan and could mean that a significant fraction of the positive test results being found are false positives.

The use of powerful drugs because doctors are convinced that they have a particularly potent virus on their hands, especially in older people, with pre-existing health conditions, is likely to lead to many deaths. As with SARS.

There is very little science happening. There is a rush to explain everything that is happening in a way that does not question the viral paradigm, does not question the meaningfulness of test results, and that promotes the use of untested antiviral drugs. And, given enough time there will be a vaccine developed and, for some of the traumatized countries, it may become mandatory, even if developed after the epidemic has disappeared, so that proving that it reduces the risk of developing a positive test will be impossible.

References

1. Zhu N et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 14. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

2. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS01406736(20)30183-5/fulltext

3. Chan J F-W et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet.2020 Jan 24. ttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-

9/fulltext

4. Rivers TM. Viruses and Koch's Postulates. J Bacteriol. 1937 Jan; 33(1): 1-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545348/

5. Gluschankof P et al. Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31; 230(1): 125-133. http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/277-Microvesicles-Gluschankof.pdf

6. Bess JW et al. Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31; 230(1): 134-44. http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/278-Microvesicles-Bess.pdf

7. Stockman LJ et al. SARS: Systematic Review of Treatment Effects. PLoS Med. 2006 Sep 12;

3(9). http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/5253-SARS-Treatment-Effects.pdf

8. Fourth case of novel coronavirus confirmed in Canada. Globe & Mail. 2020 Jan 31. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-fourth-case-of-novel-coronavirus- confirmed-in-canada/

9. Rothe C et al. Transmission of 2019-nCoV Infection from an Asymptomatic Contact in Germany. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 30. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001468

10. Chen N et al. Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of 99 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2020 Jan 30. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30211-7/fulltext

11. Population pyramid for China. https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/

12. Kim C-R. Three Japanese evacuees from Wuhan test positive for virus, two had no symptoms. Reuters. 2020 Jan 29. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-china-health- japan/three-japanese-returnees-from-wuhan-test-positive-for-coronavirus-nhk- idUKKBN1ZT02K

13. Li Q. Early Transmission Dynamics in Wuhan, China, of Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 29. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001316

14. Singapore confirms first cases of local coronavirus transmission: What we know about the 6 new cases, Health News & Top Stories. The Straits Times. 2020 Feb 4. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/singapore-confirms-first-cases-of-local- coronavirus-transmission-what-we-know-about

15. Haiyun W. China To Begin Testing Ebola Drug on Coronavirus Patients. Sixth Tone. 2020 Feb 3. https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1005155/china-to-begin-testing-ebola-drug-on- coronavirus-patients

16. Global Surveillance for human infection with novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Interim guidance. WHO. 2020 Jan 31. https://www.who.int/publications-detail/global-surveillance- for-human-infection-with-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)

17. Diagnosis and treatment: COVID-19 prevention and control. China CDC. 2020 Feb 16. http://www.chinacdc.cn/en/COVID19/202002/P020200217499154038416.pdf

18. Countries/areas with reported cases of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). CHP.

2020 Feb 22, 27. [This is a regularly updated page, and the PDF file will change] https://www.chp.gov.hk/files/pdf/statistics_of_the_cases_novel_coronavirus_infection_en.p df

19. Corman VM et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR.

Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan; 25(3). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

20. Korea Coronavirus Cases. KCDC. 2020 Feb 25-27 [accessed]. https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030

21. Novel Coronavirus Outbreak 2020. Washington State Department of Health. 2020 Feb 24 [accessed]. https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/Coronavirus

22. Koop F. A startling number of coronavirus patients get reinfected. ZME Science. 2020 Feb 26. https://www.zmescience.com/science/a-startling-number-of-coronavirus- patients-get-reinfected/

23. Feng C et al. Race to diagnose coronavirus patients constrained by shortage of reliable detection kits. South China Morning Post. 2020 Feb 11. https://www.scmp.com/tech/science- research/article/3049858/race-diagnose-treat-coronavirus-patients-constrained-shortage

24. Young BE et al. Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of Patients Infected With SARS- CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 2020 Mar 3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762688

25. Letter to the editor: Plenty of coronaviruses but no SARS-CoV-2. Eurosurveillance. 2020 Feb 27. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560- 7917.ES.2020.25.8.2000171?fbclid=IwAR1yaTgICfc15rO6mkI90pBb45j1EnT87KA5p9gcfnixqS ciJWsFeQb4j5I

The Only Pandemic in America Is That of Unbridled Fear and a Total Lack of Intelligent Thought

By Gary D. Barnett

March 19, 2020

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.” ~ Frank Herbert, Dune

Can the common flu cause people in America and worldwide to lose their minds, and lose all ability to think? Apparently, that is the case, as Americans have gone insane over a new monster created out of thin air called coronavirus. I have anticipated a scenario such as this, and written about it for the past decade or more, but the response by the people of this country is more ridiculous than even I could have imagined. It is the most pathetic sight I have seen in my life.

Without any initial testing, without any proof, without any certainty as to what this new fake threat to all mankind actually is, the world is now in lockdown, and therefore very easy to control. A better plan for the globalists could not have been imagined, as the sheep get into line for sheering without any resistance or question. I have watched this take place, and it was structured incrementally, all along testing the gullibility and fear of the populace, and as it progressed, it became obvious to those perpetrating this lie that taking over the entire country was going to be a cakewalk.

What is happening now is exactly as Bill Gates previewed it in his idiocy called Event 201, which seems to have been the initial test and propaganda piece set in place to start this engine. This was no coincidence, regardless of what the mainstream media and globalists’ claim, but was an active exercise for what was to come. And yes, this is real conspiracy, not “conspiracy theory.”

I will not relent in my efforts to expose the fact that the U.S. economy has been decimated due to spending, debt, and money creation for many years. Considering the situation in 2008, when all markets should have failed, the current economic picture is not only far worse, but has reached the pinnacle of disaster. This economy cannot be saved by money printing, QE, or sending checks out to those that have been forcibly relieved of their jobs by government fiat. I firmly believe that a major factor in why this so-called pandemic was created is to shift blame for the impending economic collapse on this virus, and hide the fact that the Fed and central banks around the world completely destroyed the economy. Had the markets and economy been allowed to fail without any fake pandemic, the government and banking system would have been exposed for the criminal thieves they are. This could not be allowed to happen by the ruling elites. Hence, the flu will kill us all!

As I wrote yesterday here:

“It is my belief that the regular flu is being used as a cover for this fake virus, and will serve to hide fault of a state-created economic collapse. In the process, all will become slaves to the state, and this is not a temporary tyranny, as it will last long after this current non-risk is over. Today, Trump and his entourage of idiots stood before the cameras and said now we can do this next spring to help stop the flu! That is basically an announcement that these measures can be used for any excuse deemed “necessary” by the ruling class. They are actually preparing the sheep for ongoing martial law.”

Coronavirus, according to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, is a part of all viruses, and 8% to 15% of viruses are coronavirus, so that will show up in testing. This is especially the case when testing the already sick and dying, the old and infirmed, and this kind of testing would be far different than random population tests. In other words, if testing is set up to test sick people, up to 15% will show coronavirus. It is a natural part of flu, and will always show up, so it would be easy to use to fool the dumbed-down and dependent herd. They are easily frightened, and expect government to take care of them from cradle to grave, so this test has been successful for those intending to take control of populations around the world.

Today, we all face horrendous consequences of this staged pandemic. The economic collapse alone will devastate much of the population. This will cause unheard of disaster, and will bankrupt many around the country. This will be life-changing for all Americans, and will change forever the landscape of what is falsely considered a “free” country. Voluntary lockdowns will quickly become mandatory lockdowns, which requires martial law and certainly medical martial law. Police will patrol not for real crime, but to force all to stay in a home prison. National guard units have been deployed in many states already, and that will continue to expand, and then the military will take to the streets to enforce government mandates once full martial law is implemented. In cities, gun sweeps will begin soon, as many areas have already banned gun and ammunition sales.

One of the saddest and most pathetic behaviors that have emerged in this chaos is that most all citizens are accepting everything they are fed, are monitoring their neighbors and anyone showing signs of dissent, and reporting them to authorities. They are helping to enslave themselves without any concept of the stupidity of their actions.

Get prepared for total chaos, economic destruction, martial law, forced vaccinations, permanent job loss, lockdowns, panic, riots, and state violence against dissenters and regular citizens that has never been seen in this country before now. Isolation will be universal, and many more will die from these tyrannical measures than any flu could ever cause.

The governing bodies are calling this a war, and they are correct, but this war is an aggressive war against Americans, not against any virus or outside foreign threat. The enemy now is us, and the aggressor forces will include full military power, with the sole objective of total control. The only solution available is mass disobedience and mass dissent. Numbers matter, and without numbers, any individual dissenter will be quickly taken out

Corona Bologna Italy: The Truth begins to leak out Mar

by Jon Rappoport

March 17, 2020

The government of Italy, as everyone knows, has locked down the whole country of 60 million people. So how many Italians have died from COV? Even by the standards of the useless and misleading diagnostic tests?

Ready?

As far as the Italian Higher Institute of Health knows, at this point:

Maybe two.

Maybe.

Try to wrap your mind around that.

Good luck.

Seems the president of the Italian Higher Institute has some smarts. He understands that people who already have other serious health conditions, which have nothing to do with COV, can and do die from those other conditions, regardless of the fact that they’ve tested positive (on useless tests) for COV. He gets it. I predict a great future for him. If he keeps shooting his mouth off, he might find himself working as a weed puller in a forest. Or he might suddenly be diagnosed with the virus and find himself in isolation.

Grit your teeth and plow through this piece from Rome, 13 March 2020, Agenzia Nova: “Coronavirus: ISS [Italian National Institute of Health]: in Italy there are only two deaths ascertained so far due to Covid-19” (Italian, English)

“There may be only two people who died from coronavirus in Italy, who did not present other pathologies. This is what emerges from the medical records examined so far by the Higher Institute of Health, according to what was reported by the President of the Institute [Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Italian National Institute of Health], Silvio Brusaferro, during the press conference held today at the Civil Protection in Rome. ‘Positive deceased patients have an average of over 80 years – 80.3 to be exact…The majority of these people are carriers of chronic diseases. Only two people were not presently carriers of [other non-COV] diseases’, but even in these two cases, the examination of the files is not concluded and therefore, causes of death different from Covid-19 could emerge. The president of the ISS has specified that ‘little more than a hundred medical records’ have so far come from hospitals throughout Italy.”

“…At present, in fact, the authorities are unable to distinguish those who died from the virus, from those who, on the other hand, are communicated daily to the public, but who were mostly carriers of other serious diseases and who, therefore, would not have died from Covid-19. In response to a question from ‘Agenzia Nova’, in fact, Brusaferro was unable to indicate the exact number of coronavirus deaths. However, the professor clarified that, according to the data analyzed, the vast majority of the victims ‘had serious [non-COV] pathologies and in some cases the onset of an infection of the respiratory tract can lead more easily to death.’ To clarify this point, and provide real data, ‘as we acquire the folders we will go further. However, the populations most at risk are fragile, carriers of multiple diseases’.”

Translation into non-medical language: the people dying in Italy have other very serious traditional diseases that have nothing to do with COV, and it’s obvious they could have died, and probably did die, from those other diseases. Nevertheless, we’re locking down the whole country.

So, for those people straining to find a reason for the “devastation” overtaking Italy—it’s karma for ancient Rome trying to conquer half the known world; it’s the ghost of Martin Luther obtaining revenge against the Vatican; it’s a bioweapon with the power to cut down millions of people overnight; it’s a virus that came in with a small meteor and crashed outside Milan; it’s Chinese revenge against Marco Polo for stealing the concept of noodles—

Take a break, relax, have a plate of pasta, turn on the TV, and because all the stadiums are empty, watch a rerun of a soccer match from 1979.

PS: For those people who believe this head of the Italian Institute is lying with his facts and figures, stop and think it through. He’s going to announce such devastating news that essentially contradicts everything the Italian government is doing with its lockdowns and quarantines of the whole country? It would be as if the director of the Centers for Disease Control announced, “There are a total of nine deaths in the US we think might have been caused by COV, and even there we’re not sure, because you see, these nine were elderly people who could barely get out of bed long before COV emerged. These nine had extremely serious lung disease NOT CAUSED, I repeat, NOT CAUSED by COV…but anyway, don’t go outside, work from home, don’t touch another human being, watch our website for bargain deals on toilet paper, and oh yes, don’t forget to get your regular flu shot if you can slip into a hazmat suit and drive at breakneck speed to your nearest pharmacy, where injection clerks are waiting…”

According to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg:

"It is just another name for acute respiratory illnesses (ARI), which as every year put 30% to 70% of all people in our countries more or less out of action for a week or two every winter.However, it is better not to be tested for corona viruses. Even with a slight "flu-like" infection the risk of coronavirus detection would be 7% - 15%. This is, what a prospective monitoring in Scotland (from 2005 to 2013 ) may teach us. The scope, the possible hits and the significance of the new tests are not jet validated. According to a prospective ARI-virus monitoring in Scotland from 2005 to 2013 , the most common pathogens of acute respiratory diseases were: 1. rhinoviruses, 2. influenza A viruses, 3. influenza B viruses, 4. RS viruses and 5. coronaviruses. Every winter we have a virus epidemic with thousands of deaths and with millions of infected people even in Germany. And coronaviruses always have their share."

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg's questions for the evaluation of the current findings:

1. Which prospective, standardized monitoring of acute respiratory diseases with or without fever (ILI, ARI) is used for the epidemiological risk assessment of coronavirus infections observed in Wuhan Italy, South Korea, Iran and elsewhere (baseline).

2. How do the comparable (!) Results of earlier observations differ from those now reported by the WHO? (in China, in Europe, in Italy, in Germany, etc.)

3. What would we observe this ARI season if we would ignore the new PCR testing?

4. How valid and how comparable are the detection methods used with regard to sensitivity, specificity and pathogenetic or prognostic relevance?

5. What is the evidence or probability that the observed corona viruses 2019/2020 are more dangerous to public health than previous variants?

6. If you find them now, how can you proove, they were not there (eg in animals) before.

7. How do you make shure, that a positive tested case is not in the same time suffering / dying from other virus co-infections?

8. What considerations have been made or taken into account to exclude or minimize sources of bias (sources of error)?