If COVID-19 Is a Hoax, Where’s the Proof?

Posted by

Sol Luckman

As one of a growing sane minority crying out to anyone willing to listen in the wilderness of insanity known as the world today that COVID-19 has never been scientifically proved to exist, I get this question a lot.

Second only to the pejorative, thought-snuffing term “conspiracy theorist” (which, according to one widely believed conspiracy theory, was invented by the CIA in 1967 to stifle public inquiry into areas, such as the Kennedy assassination, deemed potentially dangerous to the establishment), Where’s the proof? is a conversation-ending rhetorical ploy that has been weaponized by skeptics on and off the Deep State’s payroll to silence serious research and discussion of everything from the dangers of vaccines to the truth about 9/11.

What Where’s the proof? almost never means is Show me the proof. That would be inconvenient and potentially embarrassing.

No, Where’s the proof? is usually nothing more than a dismissal, code for: Even if you do have proof, I’m not going to seriously examine it, but I’m going to act as if you don’t have proof, because that way I can make you look like a fool.

See how logical skeptics tend to be?

On the subject of the nonexistence of a COVID-19 virus, wave after wave of proof is now showing up. The internet is positively oozing with it for anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear.

Take, for instance, this recent viral interview with Dr. Andrew Kaufman on London Real.

I spend a lot of time in similar territory in my article series on coronavirus. Here are the major proof-filled articles that delve into the idea that, whatever COVID-19 is, you can be sure it isn’t a virus:

21 Facts That Demolish the Official COVID-19 Narrative
Coronavirus Smoking Gun
COVID-19 & the Urgent Necessity to Rethink Our Medical Model
COVID-19: Light at the End of the Tunnel?
COVID-19: The Only Bigger Hoax Here is Germ Theory
The Most Important Article on COVID-19 You Will Ever Read
Freethinking the COVID-19 Plannedemic

If you’d prefer to sweeten your truth with humor, you might enjoy my satirical podcast on this subject:

But I would never want anyone to simply take my word when it comes to such an important matter. I’m not, after all, a skeptic.

I want you to study this subject for yourself—I mean really study it. And this means putting on your big boy or big girl pants and thoroughly reading David Crowe’s new landmark paper (below), “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory.”

Click to access CoronavirusPanic.pdf

As background for this remarkable study that obliterates the official COVID-19 narrative in one vast detonation of truth, here’s a snippet from one of the best articles yet written on the coronavirus scamdemic, “Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?” by Celia Farber.

I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe—Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”

The next part of his explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let’s push through:

“What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”

“Wow,” I said. “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you “don’t.”

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it.  You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”

This is where it gets wild.

“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”

I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was Déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.

We used to joke that you could rid yourself of an “HIV diagnosis” by flying from either the US or Australia, to Africa. But for many years, “AIDS” in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.

David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:

“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” they could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”

Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases” of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?

“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by … 37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”

“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down. But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”

I couldn’t believe my ears. And yet I could. Have you ever tried to read the package insert for a “Corona” PCR test? You begin to feel after a while that the technobabble is some kind of spell, or bad dream. An alien language from another dimension, that could not possibly—whatever else it may do—help a single human being have a better life. It’s not “English.” I don’t know what it is.

“I’ve been quoting ALICE IN WONDERLAND a lot recently,” David says, “because it’s the only way I can wrap my head around it. Alice said: “Sometimes I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!”

So where’s the proof that we’re all being monumentally lied to, with health-destroying, freedom-crushing and wealth-wrecking consequences from which we may never recover? Obviously, it’s in the pudding!

Copyright © Sol Luckman. All Rights Reserved.

Sol Luckman is a pioneering painter whose work has been featured on mainstream book covers and award-winning author whose books include the international bestselling CONSCIOUS HEALING and its bestselling sequel, POTENTIATE YOUR DNA. His visionary novel, SNOOZE: A STORY OF AWAKENING, winner of the 2015 National Indie Excellence Award for New Age Fiction, is the coming-of-age tale of one extraordinary boy’s awakening to the world-changing reality of his dreams. Sol’s latest book, THE ANGEL’S DICTIONARY: A SPIRITED GLOSSARY FOR THE LITTLE DEVIL IN YOU, winner of the 2017 National Indie Excellence Award for Humor, reinvigorates satire to prove that—though we might not be able to change the world—we can at least have a good laugh at it. Then again, maybe laughter can transform the world! Learn more about Sol’s art and writing at www.CrowRising.com.

9 comments

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.