Fact-Checking the 'Fact-Checkers'

More fake news about COVID-19.

The so-called “Fact-Checker” is a persona that 2020 appears to have brought into its own. Everywhere we turn now, it is impossible to avoid tripping over some self-styled “fact-checker” or other. 

It’s not difficult to notice that all self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” are invariably left-leaning partisans whose only interest is in “fact-checking” the claims of those who challenge the agenda of the Democratic Party.

Of course, the reality is that the moniker of “fact-checker” is of a piece of the fiction that journalists are objective, disinterested, impartial observers and “reporters” of current events who are invested in nothing other than disseminating “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” Or some such patent nonsense as this.

In what follows, I will make my first go as a fact-checker, only a fact-checker with a twist: I will begin fact-checking the fact-checkers, both their claims and those of their fellow partisan ideologues.

Here, I will focus only upon the biggest claims of 2020, namely, the claims regarding…“The Virus.”

The Claim:

COVID-19 is a novel virus that scientists have isolated.

Rating: FALSE!

In order to determine whether a virus exists, it must be isolated, purified, and extracted from the bio-chemical concoction of stuff in which it is alleged to have been located. 

This has never been done with COVID.

(1) Jon Rappoport, an investigative journalist who has been writing about epidemics and pandemics for the better part of four decades (and whose work has never been debunked), has shown that while there are indeed those who insist that the virus has been isolated, they use “isolated” in a sense that is nearly the opposite of what it actually means:

“Isolation is absurdly taken to mean: ‘We have the virus in a soup in a dish in the lab.  It is not separated (isolated) from the soup.  The soup contains various cells—human, monkey—and an array of (toxic) chemicals and drugs.  We know the virus is there, because it is infecting and killing some of the cells.’”

Rappoport elaborates:

“A reasonably bright junior high school student would immediately realize this not a description of isolation.

“A reasonably bright junior high school student would point out that there is no proof the virus is infecting and killing cells, because the toxic chemicals and drugs in the soup are sufficient to do the cell-killing.  He might also mention the cells in the soup are being starved of nutrients, and this alone could cause their death.”

He concludes:

“Therefore, there is no evidence that ‘the virus’ is actually in the soup.”

(2) David Rowe writes:

“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 this RNA and illness, but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.”

(3) The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted that it has no specimens of the virus available.  That among the most powerful, most resourceful government health agencies on the planet wouldn’t have had the virus at its disposal from day one, to say nothing of possessing it nine months into the ubiquitous imposition of “Social Distancing” mandates that have deleteriously affected the lives of as many as one billion men, women, and children throughout the Earth can only mean that COVID-19 has never been isolated, purified, extracted—as viruses are supposed to be.

(4) Citizens ranging from Canada to New Zealand, through the Freedom of Information Act, have requested from approximately 40 health agencies around the world records documenting the process by which COVID-19 has been isolated.

These activist-citizens are intent to preclude from the outset any slippery bureaucrat-speak. Ms. Christine Massey, for example, informs the bureaucrats whom she addresses that she is “using ‘isolation’ in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else” (emphasis original).

Massey elaborates to underscore that by “isolation” she most certainly does not mean, “the culturing of something, or the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or the sequencing of something.”

In other words, Ms. Massey, along with an ever-growing number of concerned citizens, is in search of records “describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells).”

Massey waited six months before she received her response, a letter that dodged her request while trying to conceal the fact that the authorities dodged her request. The requested records were nowhere supplied.

This has been the same response with which all such requests have been met.

The Claim:

The COVID-19 Pandemic has been raging as cases have been exploding once again.

Rating: FALSE!

The operative term here is “cases.”

(1) For starters, and for all the traction in political power and ratings gained by politicians and media corporations, respectively, in sensationalizing the ever-burgeoning numbers of COVID cases, “cases” is an utterly useless benchmark for gauging a public health crisis. To know of a “case” of someone “having” the virus is not the same as knowing whether a person is presently infected, much less whether he is sick or going to become sick. 

And it most certainly hasn’t anything at all to do with death.

“Case” may only imply that a person is presumed to have, or to have had, the virus, or that a person tested positive in the sense of having, or having had, material that was found that was concluded to have been the virus.  It could even mean that the person tested has antibodies, suggesting that at one time in the past, and perhaps unbeknownst to this person, he had either COVID or perhaps some other coronavirus.

(2) The PCR test, according to none other than its inventor, Karry Mullis, was never designed to determine whether anyone is sick, or will become sick, from any virus. Only if a virus can be located and measured can it be determined whether a person is sick, or will become sick. But, as Mullis bluntly said:

“Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.”

Furthermore, the PCR test, in accordance with CDC prescriptions, is run throughout the United States anywhere between 35 and 45 cycles—a number that, as everyone from scientists interviewed by The New York Times to Anthony Fauci have attested, is guaranteed to deliver false-positives at a rate north of 90%.  

The PCR test amplifies material at millions and millions of times its original size. The more cycles at which the test is run, the more amplified is the material.  This means that the lower the virus concentration, the more cycles are needed to get a positive result.  The problem, though, is that beyond a certain point, almost anything becomes discernible.  But whether it is a dead virus, other genetic material, or debris is anyone’s guess.

The French researcher Didier Raoult provides perspective. Raoult has demonstrated that when the PCR test is run at 25 cycles, about 70% of samples were genuinely positive, i.e. infectious. When, however, the test is run at a threshold of 30 cycles, only 20% of samples were infectious. At 35 cycles, a mere three percent of samples were infectious.

And when the number of cycles was above 35, zero samples were infectious.

What all of this means is that, according to this study, when, as in most European and American labs, the PCR test is run at 35 cycles or more, there is at least a 97 percent false-positive rate!

It is precisely because the PCR test, particularly given the astronomical threshold of cycles at which it is currently being administered, is likely to insure a false-positive result that the illusion of an exploding pandemic has been engendered as more people have been tested.

Being the good fact-checker that I now am, I urge that all sources responsible for promoting misleading information regarding a “pandemic” that warrants the indefinite, mandatory “quarantining” of the entire country be flagged as fake or false news and censored. 


Wondering what happened to your Disqus comments?

Read the Story