Blogs
Featured Image
 shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) – The year 2022 might one day be known as the “year of the Conspiracy Theorist,” and by that I mean the year when what were thought of as “conspiracy theories,” were actually vindicated.

Throughout much of 2020 and 2021, those who stated publicly that lockdowns, masks, and vaccines were not helping the COVID situation – and might have been making it worse – were seen as conspiracy nuts, unscientific luddites, or people who were just plain evil and insensitive.

There is a still a remnant of COVID zealotry that lurks in the shadows, and I imagine there are people who have adopted COVID as a form of gender expression and will probably never let it go.

However, the tide is changing, even if it is two years too late.

We might never know the full truth, but the cultural narrative is opening up to the point where major papers and outlets can question and even ridicule the sacred cows of covidism.

The most recent attack by a major outlet on the covidian narrative is found in the UK’s Daily Mail.

The paper published a piece calling into question the validity of the standard tests used to identify COVID infections – the PCR test.

“Did flawed PCR tests convince us Covid was worse than it really was?” author Jo Macfarlane asked.

In the article, McFarland mentioned how the PCR test has been used inconsistently at labs around the UK, and this has resulted in a slew of false positives. He wrote that it could be a third of COVID positive PCR tests that were essentially false positives, or at least identified non-infectious virus.

Real Experts confirm this

The term “expert” has all but lost its meaning since the pandemic was declared, especially if we consider just how wrong the supposed experts have been on basically every prediction that was made about the virus.

However, real experts have attested to the shenanigans at play with the PCR test when used improperly.

In the Daily Mail piece, McFarland wrote, “Some even suggested the swabs, which have been carried out more than 200 million times in the UK alone, may mistake common colds and flu for corona.”

He added, “[This] would mean many of these cases should never have been counted in the daily tally – that the ominous and all-too-familiar figure, which was used to inform decisions on lockdowns and other pandemic measures, was an over-count.”

McFarland is being kind. It would not just mean there was an “over-count.” It would mean there was fraud of proportions never seen before.

He doesn’t provide any proof that cold and flu cases have been confused with COVID cases in his piece, but it is a legitimate assertion.

Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, a former Trump adviser and current Convoy COVID expert, has compiled the most extensive list of studies and articles showing the defects of the PCR test as it has been used regarding COVID, along with a litany of other things that have gone wrong with the so-called pandemic debacle.

In a statement to LifeSiteNews, Dr. Alexander goes well beyond McFarland’s assertion that as many as a third of cases might be false positives or non-infectious.

“The key issue is the PCR test does not differentiate between cold or flu or RSV or COVID virus,” he said. “Also key is that the test was overcycled and this is where the disaster with the infection numbers came in. Most globally were false as we knew there was a 95% false positive. Most, most were never COVID positive. By overcycling, which is the amplifications, above 20 to 24 cycle count threshold, we denoted as positive when we actually knew the test was picking up viral dust, fragments, old common cold coronavirus, old COVID virus and not culturable infectious virus. We knew more likely it was not COVID, but this step was used to help scare the populations into locking down and masking indefinitely. It was a lie.”

Now, before you doubt Alexander’s background, check out his CV, which is among the most impressive in the world.

In addition, Dr. Scott Atlas of the renowned Hoover Institute, who also tried to help Donald Trump in his failed attempt to subdue the COVID lies, has pointed out the misuses of the PCR.

He showed in a presentation at Hillsdale College that dubious PCR test results were used as justification for a COVID positive, even when a doctor did not believe the person was sick.

Even liberal outlets have admitted it

Well before the declared pandemic of COVID-19, The New York Times released a piece in 2007 called “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

In essence, a whooping cough epidemic was declared after someone was diagnosed with the disease from a PCR test.

The only problem? It was a false positive and no one was sick.

That didn’t stop hysteria from spreading, however. “Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

About eight months after the ordeal, “health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

If grandma was in a nursing home and died after testing positive by way of a PCR test, what is to say her plight was any different than the epidemic that wasn’t in 2007?

Deaths might be WAY lower

Now, perhaps more important or at least more striking than the false cases numbers is the fact that many – at least half? – of COVID associated deaths are falsely attributed.

Regions have admitted to inflated death statistics, as they counted people who died “with” COVID or who simply tested positive around the time of their death as people who died from the disease itself.

However, the admission of lower death numbers does not include the nefarious nature of how the PCR was used. These admissions still take the PCR at face value, but give a more nuanced approach to actual cause of death.

If it is true that upward of 95 percent of PCR results were false … then what does that say about death statistics?

It is easy to see how this is a faulty method. In fact, elderly and sickly people often have some sort of viral infection at the time of their death due to the weakened state. It is common that someone with a bad cancer will also have pneumonia when he breathes his last.

It would be irresponsible to say that someone who struggled with a bad disease for years had died “because of the flu” when they were already in the final stages of cancer. Sure, the virus may have been the last straw, but you may as well say that a house that has been rotted out by termites fell down because of a bad wind.

If we consider that it is now being admitted that death numbers should be readjusted, we can also take into account that so many people who were said to have died from COVID in fact had another respiratory illness, or no respiratory illness at all.

There were people in the beginning who called the COVID crisis a “hoax” and they were lambasted for it.

But, what if over half or as many as 95 percent of deaths were labeled by a badly used test?

What could such a mistake be called, if not a hoax?

Featured Image

Kennedy Hall is an Ontario based journalist for LifeSiteNews. He is married with children and has a deep love for literature and political philosophy. He is the author of Terror of Demons: Reclaiming Traditional Catholic Masculinity, a non-fiction released by TAN books, and Lockdown with the Devil, a fiction released by Our Lady of Victory Press. He writes frequently for Crisis Magazine, Catholic Family News, and is on the editorial board at OnePeterFive.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

21 Comments

    Loading...