Friday, January 22, 2021

More Confirmation Of The Greatest Hoax Ever

The supposed pandemic has been well described as, in actuality, a "casedemic". In other words the constant drumbeat of "case" statistics based on the inappropriate use of PCR testing was always ever designed to instill fear of death in the populace by creating a false impression of rapid and wide spread of actual disease--with the real goal of driving Trump from office. We've all known that for a long time, and I have to admit I've grown a bit weary of pointing out the hoax nature of this pandemic--preaching to the choir. It's been a long time since the actual epidemiological profile of this disease was any mystery, but the "casedemic" hoax was perpetrated to reinforce the false narrative.

Wednesday, under cover of the military protected installation of a new DC regime, the WHO came out with new guidance for use of the PCR test--guidance that essentially completely deconstructs everything that the Global establishment has been propagating in the face of scientific knowledge. I actually did take note of this development and initially passed on it, but for those who missed it, LifeSite has an excellent account:

One hour after Biden inaugurated, WHO changes COVID testing criteria

The change is expected to lead to a reduction in COVID case tallies.

In what some have suggested is politicized timing, the World Health Organization on Wednesday changed the protocol for COVID-19 tests, which will result in large reductions in the numbers of positive cases. The body took this action just one hour after Joe Biden was sworn in as president of the United States.

On Wednesday, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued guidance regarding the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which is being widely used across the globe in order to detect cases of COVID-19. In a short information notice, the WHO referred back to an instruction booklet for COVID testing, released in September 2020, noting that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed.”

The guidance warned against diagnosing someone as having the virus just because he tests positive if he does not present with symptoms of COVID-19. It also warned about the high risk of false positives: ...

“As disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. The probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity,” the WHO continued.

Right. Reread those two paragraphs. Then put it in your asymptomatic spread pipe and smoke it.


An even more surprising admission followed: the document described PCR tests merely as an “aid for diagnosis” and did not place any greater weight upon the results of PCR tests. “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”

The new guidance for assessing the results of PCR COVID tests effectively means that there are additional steps to be taken before reporting that someone has tested positive for the virus. The WHO notes that “a new specimen should be taken and retested” and further stipulates that “health care” workers should weigh up the test result alongside real-world information, such as symptoms or “clinical observations,” and contact with any other infected individuals.

There's lots more technical information on the PCR test. There's also more on testing as well as the clearly political nature of this hoax at a recent PJ Media article:

The WHO Finally Updates Its COVID-19 Testing Policy... One Hour After Biden's Inauguration


I’ve been saying it for months. In fact, I documented it on October 27, 2020, for posterity: As soon as Joe Biden became president, the narrative on COVID-19 would change. Today, the World Health Organization (WHO) proved me right.

In August of last year, The New York Times published an article stating that as many as 90% of COVID-19 tests in three states were not indicative of active illness. In other words, they were picking up viral debris incapable of causing infection or being transmitted because the cycle threshold (Ct) of the PCR testing amplified the sample too many times.

Labs in the United States were using a Ct of 37-40. Epidemiologists interviewed at the time said a Ct of around 30 was probably more appropriate. This means the CDC’s COVID-19 test standards for the PCR test would pick up an excessive number of false positives. The Times report noted that the CDC’s own data suggested the PCR did not detect live virus over a Ct of 33. The reporter also noted that clinicians were not receiving the Ct value as part of the test results.

But note well--this was not an otherwise harmless scientific-medical hoax. It was a hoax perpetrated for political purposes at the highest levels of our scientific and political establishments and by Bill Gates and our other Globalist - Great Reset masters. As a deliberate part of that political hoax our economy and education systems were shut down. Further, effective treatment for the actual disease was knowingly withheld, allowing many otherwise unnecessary deaths--to keep the fear up.

Call it all American exceptionalism. It really was exceptional.


  1. It seems like only yesterday.....but was actually just 2 weeks ago.

    1. Yes. The question now is, which scenario--as forecast in my final two paragraphs--will play out?

  2. @Mark

    Yet another 'hoax'. Which puts me in mind of one aspect of the nature and consequences of hoaxes.

    Of course, a 'hoax' is by definition false and a lie. So why go with it, especially if it is likely to be discovered (sooner of later) to be false and a lie?

    The answer is that the hoax does enormous damage when it is propagated and before it is debunked, regardless of whether and when it is debunked. The longer it takes to debunk it, the more effective it is.

    The accusation is the thing. Trump was accused of Russian Collusion and it nearly destroyed him. 100% confirmation, which only came years later, of the falsity of the accusation, was too late.

    The Left uses this strategy repeatedly with great effect. Last summer, the Left claimed that George Floyd was 'murdered' and turns the country upside down in racial convulsions. The truth, which only emerged later, is irrelevant.

    The Left claimed only days ago that Trump led an insurrection against the Government of the United States. Of course he did no such thing, as the transcript of his speech clearly shows. And as evidence emerging of extremist planning of the event is showing.

    But, no matter. The accusation is all that matters. The exoneration or debunking, which comes weeks, months or years later, is no compensation for the damage done by the accusation.

    This strategy, used repeatedly (you can all think of many, many examples than the two I've given) is remarkably effective.

    The problem with it, I think, and the problem is fatal, I think, is that the victim knows he has been maliciously and unfairly attacked and, if he is human, will be consumed by an overwhelming hatred for the attacker, resulting in an overwhelming (and entirely understandable) desire for retribution.

    It is this understandable desire for retribution, for revenge really, which is boiling up today in the victims of the Left's numerous hoaxes and for which a peaceful resolution must be highly doubtful. Biden's call for 'unity', without any recognition or confession of the Left's guilt, is a pipe dream.

    1. How about this: How many politicians of EITHER party do you think were unaware of the casedemic hoax?

    2. If you're suggesting that the desire to be rid of Trump had many adherents (more than we realized) in both parties over the last year, based on what we're seeing, I can't disagree.

      I've been reading the many opinions expressed here about the future of the GOP with and without Trump, about whether or not to vote, and of the plusses and minuses of a third party. I confess I do not yet have a strong opinion, except to say that I agree with Dan Bongino (and many others) that a third party which does not take with it an overwhelming majority of the GOP rank and file is doomed. For the foreseeable future we have an institutionalized two-party system in the US and all a third party candidate can do is siphon votes, not win. In any imaginable scenario a conservative third party candidate for president would insure a Democratic win.

      As far as the desire of the Uniparty to be rid of Trump is concerned, I will say that I just don't see how the genie can be put back in the bottle. Trump exposed so many problems that can simply not be dealt with by censorship, doxxing, cancelling and political correctness. They will not go away. So I would say the question is how we as a nation will address them, with or without Trump.

      A daunting question, I submit.

    3. How about this: How many politicians of EITHER party do you think were unaware of the casedemic hoax?

      One for sure - Sandy Cortez, an over educated bartender


    4. "exposed so many problems that can simply *not be* dealt with by censorship, doxxing, ...."
      Oh yes they can, esp. if supplemented by an unleashed DS, with its bent to produce false flags, miraculous voter turn-outs, etc.
      If you have the means to emigrate into a saner country (e.g. Sweden, where has had much saner covid policies), I suggest using those means.
      Until these Lefties emulate the 1794 Montagnards, by tearing each other to pieces over (relatively) petty issues, this country is headed for, at best, 3rd World status.

    5. Further to my comment about hoaxes above, another benefit of the 'hoax strategy' is that if repeated often enough it becomes true...this is what gaslighting is all about. Half of America still believes Genl Flynn lied to the FBI.

    6. The problem is this hoax is global. Far beyond the capacity of the U.S. Uniparty or DS.
      Tom S.

    7. The Epoch Times’s reporter asked why the WHO held that “guidance” back for so long. Still waiting for a response, apparently. I’d say it was in someone’s bottom drawer. When Joe announced that he’d resume sending buckets of taxpayer money to the WHO - the only reason the WHO wants the US as a member - the guidance was pulled out and dusted off, to be published only after it was a sure thing that Joe had been sworn in. Quid pro Joe rides again...

  3. completely o/t -
    (NOTE: I'm going to abbreviate names and titles in hopes of reducing exposure to searches. I guess we're really in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds territory now. @Mark, I do suggest that you archive and download your blog in case it gets deleted; this is relatively easy to do.)

    I was reading JV's AT article "Ind-Sc Fr...?," began revisiting some of his prior articles, which ultimately brought me to AW's article "When coms ch..."

    At AW's article I found a tail-between-the-legs retraction that was obviously written by D's lawyers.

    So: JV's article is banging the fraud drum and it gets published. Importantly, it does not contain any references to D by name.

    What do you legal types think of this? There would seem to be three possible scenarios:
    1) no fraud occurred
    2) fraud occurred, and neither D nor their machines were involved
    3) fraud occurred, D was involved, and billion dollar lawsuits are really effective

    Was SP similarly cowed, even after openly begging for discovery?

    1. I think the mistake that AT may have made was in accusing Dominion, the company, of fraud. AT isn't retracting the notion that fraud occurred, just that Dominion the company was the one responsible--rather than election officials or lower level technicians. I'm not sure how that works, but I suspect there's some such distinction. Dominion's machines being used doesn't mean the company committed the fraud. That's my guess.

    2. Also if you read the retraction closely, it refers to the most sensationalist charges of overseas vote switching and external manipulation.

      The machines software sucks. There is a reason why they frantically installed patches before the election. The machines do make errors. I am thinking that is what Powell may want to find in discovery if allowed.

      She has withdrawn her Georgia lawsuit. There may be behind the scenes negotiations for a settlement. Ie. she says I am sorry and Dominion doesn't have to show their software performance.

      Take a wait and see attitude.


    3. When I was watching the CEO of D testify, I had the feeling he was saying that the computers didn’t do anything. The people running them did it. However, you don’t openly say that about your customers. I think it is very accurate to say that the D products are “very flexible.”

    4. Dominion had its own contract workers involved in the operation of their machines. At least one was a star witness against them and their manipulable “voting system”.

  4. "effective treatment for the actual disease was knowingly withheld", as was knowledge of
    effective preventions/ mitigations, e.g. via vitamin D.
    Even DJT failed to do real justice to those considerations.
    I'd have expected him to *really* stress this, esp. after his early-Oct. diagnosis.
    As it was, there was only *some* buzz about vit. D, e.g. at :

    > "If your blood level of vitamin D is low, you're up to double the risk of dying from COVID if you get it," McComsey said.... <
    (McComsey being Veep of Research and Associate Chief Scientific Officer, at [Cleveland] University Hospitals.)

    1. That's true. I wasn't privy to Trump's polling, but I thought, and said, that he should have made all this an issue. Bad advice, bad judgment? I dunno.

    2. This is an example of where Trump's preferred method of communication hurt him.

      All Spring and Summer he stood in front of the press and winged it about how he was dealing with the covid. He was winging it when he touted hydroxychloroquine (based on his opinion [which was probably correct]) and the press crucified him. From a PR perspective, I would give that round to the press. If he had assembled a panel of twelve scientists (with credentials!) to issue an official paper recommending hydroxychloroquine therapy, he would have been much better off.

      Having said that, I will say again, as I've said many times in the past, Trump is Trump and you don't get the incredible greatness without the flaws. I'll take Trump, with flaws, any day.

    3. Respectfully, there was nothing Trump could have presented from the scientific community or even a legion of top virologists that could have beaten this hoax narrative.

      The censorship, silencing and demonization of hundreds Dr's and scientists happened as did with any entity who didn't toe the corrupt WHO (CCP) line.

      What we witnessed surrounding questions of bona-fide science, medicine and the health of the public was that they became abject slaves to this vile, globalized form of tribalized politics. It's beyond twisted what happened - and will continue to happen; there isn't any going back now in that regard.

      Never in world history of 'pandemics' has the planet locked down until Xi Jingping did it, then leveraged a corrupt WHO, global 'elites' and tongue-bathing Media to syndicate this approach - and they did at scale.

      There was never any real academic debate in the US, and any debate that was* hatched was strangled in its crib by the same people responsible for for the phony Russia hoax, the phony impeachments and the fraudulent election.


  5. I’m still amazed at the evil done against hydroxychloroquine for using it for Covid treatment.

    If it had not happened, I would think it impossible.

    Trump played whack a mole with Covid. When a problem came up, he solved it.

    Such as:
    - ventilator production
    - PPE/ masks
    - vaccine production

    It’s amazing what Trump did get done.

    Unfortunately Trump did not realize how corrupt / incompetent / biased saint Fauci, cdc, Who, Internet Giants, Media, medical journals, and fda were / are until it was too late.

    1. Like Hannibal, Trump even moved elephants accross mountains. However Hannibal hesitated to exploit his successes and capture Rome, maybe he couldn't stomach the filth, or just didn't know what to do with such level of corruption.

      At that point his generals abandoned him, and Rome had the opportunity to strike at his back, in his home Cartege.

      The rest is history.

  6. man, it was discussions of postings by shipwreckedcrew that originally brought me here...that seems so long ago, sigh

    OTOH, methinks a sudden outbreak of "lead poisoning" might be beneficial to the Republic (h/t to Napoleon's "whiff of grapeshot"), but what do I know?

  7. And now this ... hmmm ... i have been extremely negative 👎🏽 on the Repubs for good reason, but maaaybbeee ...

    You have to fight fire with fire, play at their level ... cliches, I know, but Trump led the way ...

    Wonder, though, if McConnell using Trump on judges will actually help (I have extreme doubts on that) ...

  8. I'm concerned that there is another reason that WHO is finally acknowledging what was well known--that PCR tests are not diagnostic in the absence of other symptoms or if the number of cycles used is below 33 (at most). The reason for the acknowledgment -- to pave the way for mandatory vaccination.

    For example, the WHO switch makes it clear that PCR tests are of no value for screening asymptomatic people for travel. Therefore, please show your government-issued vaccination passport before boarding. Ditto for entering a federal building. Those of us who are at low risk for a bad outcome from COVID but don't have confidence that the vaccines and their use of mRNA technology were adequately tested (and have no ability yet to assess the risk of a problem from the vaccines) will be forced to conform.

    Andy S.

    1. The difficulty with that, however, is that this statement appears to strongly undercut any notion of asymptomatic spread--which has been specifically debunked by other mainstream outfits. So I don't see this as supporting mandatory vaxxing. The latest news, too, is that current vaccines are very effective against the new strains.

  9. Florida is requiring testing to state how many cycles they did. The more cycles, the greater the chance of false positives.

    I just took two Covid tests in Ca. One rapid that I got results in an hour, and the other took a week. Both negative. Both places had no idea about the number of cycles. I don’t think they even knew.

    It took me 3 days to get a rapid test done, all same day, and next day, unless I paid were full.

    1. @Ray

      Don't read too much into your negative result. I was tested negative the other day. I said to my doctor that I was relieved that my cold symptoms were not the covid. I told him I felt fine.

      He said, "Don't be so sure!" "Up to 30% of negatives are false negatives", he said.

      I said something which amounted to "WTF. You guys don't know whether a positive is false or not and now I discover that you don't know whether a negative is false or not."

      I told him again I felt fine, but he said because my negative test might be false I still might have the covid.

      By his logic, test or not, so might anyone. And if anyone might, we're in for a long lockdown.

  10. More hypocritical actions. Around the California capital they have opened up. Don’t want to inconvenience the nomenclature. 90% of the rest of the state is still in lockdown. And Ca is dead last in vaccine distribution.

  11. How many hundreds of thousands have died of COVID-19 because hospitals, the CDC, NIH, FDA, etc. lied about the effectiveness of the hydroxycloroquine cocktail?

    I tested positive at the VA in Houston in early October. Went to a local ER and demanded to get the prescriptions that would cure me in five days. ER doctor said the CDC hadn't approved it as a treatment option, but offered to admit me to the hospital.

    Told the doctor that the hospital could eff off, and that I went to the ER for a proven cure; not a potential death sentence. Told my insurance company to not pay any bills that came through because the ER doctor refused to treat me.

  12. @Cadsander

    Wow!!! I did not know.
    >Up to 30% of negatives are false negatives",

  13. @CTD

    My daughter had a scare because on of the tests her roommate showed she was positive. Then the roommate took other tests she was negative.

    Looking for Hcq, it seems the nyc doctor that pushed it has a network of doctors that can prescribe it through a video call.

    His Twitter mentioned this, but he got banned. How dare he reply to a tweet by Ted Cruz!

    The restrictions / recommendations against hcq use for Covid seem to be gradually disappearing / getting memory holed.