Anyone who spends any sort of time on social media can’t have missed the increasingly frequent disagreements that have bloomed over the threat posed by the Covid-19 virus.
Debate, it seems, has begun to fall into two distinct camps: those who consume and then regurgitate the ‘facts’ as told to the world at large by the UK and other governments; and those whose hunger for knowledge on the subject has led them to other sources of the truth.
One of the scientists regularly quoted in these frequently heated social media exchanges is Dr Mike Yeadon whose public debunking of much of the data being peddled in support of what many consider to be Draconian anti-Covid measures was widely reported in the UK media in the late summer.
Many critics of Dr Yeadon denounced the evidence he presented on the basis that he was a former Chief Scientific Officer with pharmaceutical giant Pfizer – the same company that manufactured the vaccine currently being rolled out to frontline workers and the vulnerable.
His professional associations aside – none of which should really have any bearing on his reputation as a scientist, by the way – it is hard to ignore the weight of the evidence that his work offers.
Dr Yeadon is one of 22 scientists who make up the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Science (ICSLS) which has released compelling data to prove the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – widely used around the world diagnose Covid-19 infection – is ‘fatally flawed’.
At the end of November, the ICSLS called on an organisation called Eurosurveillance to withdraw its study in support of the protocols that are used in the PCR test.
The study – known as the Corman-Drosten paper – was published in January this year, just one day after it was submitted.
Quite apart from raising serious questions about the integrity of what is considered to be the shortest scientific peer review in history, it also raises serious questions about the motivation for fast-tracking its publication.
The ICSLS says its own research proves the PCR test – the test, remember, upon which every single piece of the government’s increasingly dictatorial anti-Covid strategy is based – is all but completely useless and says it makes a nonsense of Eurosurveillance’s January study.
The most significant of the 10 fatal flaws in the PCR test, according to a report by respected science journalist Peter Andrews, include:
- Non-specificity due to erroneous design, meaning it is not accurate in determining evidence of a specific covid strain;
- Test results are enormously variable
- An inability to differentiate between virus fragments and whole virus
- It has no positive or negative controls
- It has no standard operating procedure – meaning that even if you disregard the accuracy of the test itself, results are not consistent with each other due to variable application protocols
Obviously, there is a great deal of hard science that sits behind the ICSLS findings, but in a nutshell what it means is that the test returns an astonishingly high number of false positive results – estimated by some to be as great as 97%.
The extent of the disingenuity of the original January paper becomes clearer when you learn that, according to Peter Andrews’ report, at least three of its authors are allegedly on the payroll of the first companies to win the PCR testing contracts.
So, what does this mean to you and me? In essence the biggest impact on our everyday lives is that we are living under stringent restrictive measures that have been informed by poor science with no credible basis in fact.
It also lends weight to Yeadon’s own views that much of the country had achieved herd immunity as early as the summer and that the virus is on the wane, not on the rise. It also lends credence to data that shows mortality rates during November of this year were actually lower than in the same period five years previously.
More than that, though, it also raises another question which is about the extent of the virus itself.
No one doubts that the virus exists, or that it poses a threat to the vulnerable and the elderly. But does the real extent of the virus – which is to say not the extent suggested by what we can now safely conclude are statistically unsafe tests – justify the societal and economic impact of the measures that affect our daily lives?
My own view is that they do not. As Peter Andrews concludes at the end of his report, it is far more likely that we are seeing a pseudo-pandemic that bears no relation to the supposed ‘truth’ the government and its narrow church of scientific advisers would have us believe.
As we approach Christmas, it’s a good time of year to question the facts around the pandemic and the government’s response to it. Use these links to read the full January paper from Eurosurveillance and also find out more about ICSLS and its own review of the Corman-Drosten report.
There is a wealth of evidence and data out there relating to Covid-19 and the basis on which government strategy is based – we all just need to be interested enough to look for it and then question what we are being told by a government which seems disinclined to take advice from a wide body of expertise.