In a recent article, I explained why the diagnostic test for the
coronavirus in a patient is worthless and unreliable. The implications
of that fact are enormous.
Here, I want to make further comments on fake science.
A rational researcher, at the CDC, if one existed, would say, upon
hearing of a possible outbreak in the city of Wuhan: "Let's see the
proof that a new virus is responsible, is the causative agent."
What kind of proof would he be asking for?
First, he would want to know, "Do researchers there have an actual
biological specimen of this new virus? Do they have the real thing?"
And if the answer came back yes, he would reply, "We're sending in one of our Wuhan people so he can confirm that."
But how would the confirmation work? You can't just lay a specimen of a
virus on a table and shine a light on it. It's far too small to see.
There is a traditional method of observation. It's called an electron
microscope photograph (an EM). Certain established procedures exist for
obtaining an EM from a patient's tissue sample. The CDC scientist
would want to make sure the Chinese scientists
had carried out this process correctly.
He would say, "Let's have a look at the Chinese EM." He wants to
confirm there are many identical particles of the new virus in the EM.
Let's buck the odds and imagine he does confirm it. So far, so good.
But there is more. And here is where the rubber meets the road and the
failure factor is very high. I need to back up a bit to explain.
When a clinical trial of a new drug is done (and here I'll make a
gigantic leap and assume it's done correctly), is it carried out on one
patient?
Is the result of giving the drug to a single patient then extrapolated
to mean everyone will react the way this one person did? Of course
not. That would be absurd. In a clinical trial, sooner or later,
researchers are dealing with a large number of volunteers.
A thousand or more.
So, in the case of a new coronavirus, in China, the rational CDC
scientist would say: "I want to see electron microscope photographs
derived from five hundred patients who have been provisionally diagnosed
with the new disease."
I myself ask, where are these photographs? Where are the completely
necessary photographs? Because the Chinese scientist would tell his CDC
counterpart, "Oh, we didn't carry out the EM procedure on five hundred
patients. We carried it out on one. Two.
Maybe three. I'm not sure."
At which point, this fantasy rational CDC scientist would blow his
stack. He would say, "You're declaring a new epidemic based on two or
three photographs from two or three patients??"
Of course, I would need rock solid proof that, at the CDC, there is a
rational scientist who would ask for EM pictures from five hundred
patients, and explode if he couldn't find them because they were never
done. Show me such a rational CDC scientist. Bring
him forward. I want to interview him. I want to find out how he feels
being ostracized by every other scientist at the CDC.
Consider this likely scenario---which explains why researchers only did
the EMs on two or three of the patients. If someone actually performed
the electron microscope work on 500 patients diagnosed with the new
disease, he would find some indication, in the
photographs, of a coronavirus in maybe nine patients.
At which point, in Wuhan, they would shrug and say, "Well, wow, that
didn't work out. What a flop. Our hypothesis of a new disease based on
a new coronavirus collapsed. We should have been able to see lots of
the virus in the photos from ALL 500 patients,
or at least the overwhelming percentage of the 500. And we didn't.
Back to the drawing board. Let's see. What's the primary sign of the
new disease? Pneumonia? Come to think of it, about 300,000 people in
China die of pneumonia every year. How about
we look at some studies on the air quality here in Wuhan? I think my
colleague down the block has a pile of them. Let's walk over there.
Anybody have a searchlight so we can see the street through the fog of
pollution? Let me get my oxygen tank and breathing
helmet."
And that would be the end of that.
Back in Atlanta, the rational CDC scientist would say to his colleagues,
"That Chinese outbreak wasn't a virus. How about we spend the
afternoon going through some of our own studies on vaccines? I know the
fraud is rampant. Let's get it out in the open."
Sure. Happens every day over at the CDC.
Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe someone has done electron microscope
photographs derived from 500 patients diagnosed with the new epidemic
disease. LET'S SEE THE PHOTOS. SHOW THEM TO ME. We'll have a few
non-conflicted experts analyze them.
Otherwise, don't talk about science. There is no science going on.
Talk about fakery. And liability. And prison.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment