For those who click on the link to Will's article at the Daily Sceptic, be sure to read the Reader Comments that follow. The first eight I read were very astute IMO. I hit them all with a "like!"
I should probably mention why "dating" the first possible cases would be so important. If you have a fair amount of cases (in multiple states or countries) that date to, say, October 2019 ... and this virus is/was as contagious as most of us think it is - then the virus "spread" would "take off" from this starting line. One case would become two cases would become four cases would become, at some point probably in a few months, MILLIONS of cases.
If I'm characterizing Will's theory correctly, he is saying that a few people in a few communities did have Covid or were infected by this virus, but for some reason it really wasn't spreading from person to person at any big clip. The cases were "isolated." In other words, the virus became more "transmissible" or virulent many months later (beginning in late March and early April). Will does state (I believe) that mutations of any virus occur (which is accepted) and, presumably, the future mutations were much more contagious than the earlier versions.
On the other hand, I happen to think this virus was contagious from the get-go. In fact, it would become less contagious the more people who had already contracted it and acquired natural immunity.
I actually think infections were beginning to peter out by April 2020. The reason I think this is because reports of people having cold and flu type symptoms in April were much lower than these reports were in November-early March. Since I think spikes of the virus are seasonal, I think we had another big wave beginning in the fall and winter of 2020-2021.
While tens of millions of people had probably already been infected by the lock-down dates of mid-March 2020, the majority of Americans had yet to be infected so there was plenty of people who could still get infected and sick the next ILI season.
Feb 24, 2023·edited Feb 24, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
There is an obvious blind spot present in most of the analysis of the CoVid disaster, namely PCR diagnostic tests. PCR was discovered in 1983 by Kary Mullis as a laboratory tool with high analytical specificity in looking for small amounts of targeted genomic sequences. The use of PCR as a diagnostic tool was never established, in fact it was a total disaster in a 2007 outbreak of pertussis in New Hampshire where it proved to produce 100% false positives. Without a valid diagnostic test, it’s impossible to determine cases and spread. The entire Covid pandemic spread was based on fraud.
I agree. The PCR tests were the "key to the operation" to stoke massive fear, hysteria and panic. That's why "cases" were sky-rocketing in ... April 2020 (!). The "cases" were inflated by probably 90 percent.
As much as I think the PCR tests were a scam, I do note that they were not being widely administered until AFTER the lockdowns. What if these tests had been administered to large numbers of people in February or January? The evidence of "early spread" would have been undeniable. I think officials intentionally delayed the testing of PCR tests until after the lockdowns. I also think they suppressed the wide-spread use of antibody tests until May ... to conceal even more evidence of "early spread."
I also think the "cutoff values" on the "authorized" antibody tests may have been manipulated to produce fewer "positives." So this would be the exact opposite of what they did with the PCR tests, which were manipulated to produce maximum numbers of positive cases.
I'm sure some people think the science establishment wouldn't try to manipulate the early antibody tests, but I'm not in this group. Look at what they did with the PCR tests. Of course, they will manipulate "diagnostic" tests to get the results they are looking for.
IMO any mention of the PCR TEST discredits any discussion. It was a totally fraudulent test, never supposed to be used diagnostically, with a 95% false positive result.
If you've done as deep a dive into "early spread" as I have, you'd learn that the ONLY way to "confirm" an "early case" is by one of these PCR tests. And the PCR tests weren't even being used (except for very few people) in January 2020. So my question has always been: How the hell do you "confirm" an early case? They don't count the antibody tests. Bottom-line: They've rigged the system where there can't be any "confirmed" evidence of early infections. Clever (or sneaky), but that's their m.o. Control the tests and the definitions.
...And then they used the PCR tests to make sure we all thought everyone was being infected in the spring of 2020.
While Will’s main conclusion - substantial or real spread almost certainly began in Wuhan - doesn’t necessarily match my hypothesis..
I sent Will my copiously annotated article on early spread in the US and Northern Europe.
Will replied that he could not run it because it seemed pro-China, and that he had lost PayPal access twice for that sin, and was unwilling to risk his livelihood again.
Thanks for the link and the in-depth analysis, theorizing. The more I research this, the farther back my "start date" goes. I've read and received many testimonials from people who say they had it in the spring of 2019 and as early as March. And some people say they had it in 2018. Keep digging and thinking outside the box!
I also look at who was doing "early" antibody tests and where the tests were being performed. For example, I've found one NY hospital that came up with its own in-house antibody assay and tested their employees with it. The percentage positive was far higher than most of the other "authorized" tests (probably done by Abbott or Quest or some friend of the government diagnostic company).
I've tried to make a good deal of the antibody results of one clinic in Delray Beach that began testing for antibodies in March (far earlier than most clinics). Between some point in March and early May, the clinic did 500 antibody tests. 200 of the results (40 percent!) came back positive. How can this clinic produce such high positive rates when most of the other clinics that began testing in May were barely producing any positives?
One might say this clinic was using a "junk test." Okay, if this is the case, why hasn't anyone sued this clinic for their copious "false positive" results?
In other words, who was doing the antibody tests was important. The private or independent labs/organizations kept producing much higher rates of "positives." This is a tell IMO.
In your article you mentioned the 39 blood donor group. I assume you know that blood is pooled by type (A- AB+ etc) then processed into 4 different uses, the largest of which is whole blood for transfusions. So if the Red Cross tested after pooling then one donor would infect the whole batch. If tested before the pooling then it would be on an isolated pint of blood from one donor.
Thanks. I'd never heard that. However, this tranche of blood had already been set aside for study. The study was "re-purposed" to test for Covid antibodies ... so that must mean there was no pooling of blood units in these two tranches. Plus, they wouldn't have made the conclusions they did if blood had been pooled with other donated blood.
I do wonder why more tranches of "archived" blood weren't tested. Surely, this was not the only Red Cross blood that could have been tested. Also, several other organizations also collect blood so it's not just the Red Cross that has blood sitting around in refrigerators or freezers.
I also note that the news coming out of Wuhan as of Dec. 31, 2019 was almost immediately perceived as "the big one" for epidemiologists and virus sleuths. Four-alarm fire warning signals were sent out across the scientific community.
It seems to me that one of the fist steps public health officials would have made is to identify and protect units of blood that had already been collected. The thought being: "we can test this blood to see if perhaps this virus had been spreading in America."
So I would have sent a memo to our friends at the RC and the other blood collection organizations: "Save some tranches of your blood for future testing. Don't 'pool' all of the blood."
I would have also have started collecting my own blood everywhere I could immediately. I understand that there wasn't a "Covid antibody test" on Dec. 31, 2019 ... but everyone in the science community would have known that such a test was going to be rapidly developed. Producing a new type antibody test is not that great a challenge.
From my research, I know that China was testing blood for antibodies in January 2020.
This thought exercise is another example of the the things that "should" have happened ... that didn't happen. In other words, someone intentionally decided to not issue such a memo or chose to not start on the project of collecting as much testable blood as possible as early as possible. I call this the "dog that didn't bark" evidence.
I think certain officials wanted to conceal evidence that might posit "early spread" ... probably because they knew that early spread had already happened.
Thanks. Also, this is a new Substack, which I highly recommend. The author has already provided excellent source material on this topic that I had missed. She knows her stuff ... and has a colorful style and pugnacious attitude.
For those who click on the link to Will's article at the Daily Sceptic, be sure to read the Reader Comments that follow. The first eight I read were very astute IMO. I hit them all with a "like!"
I should probably mention why "dating" the first possible cases would be so important. If you have a fair amount of cases (in multiple states or countries) that date to, say, October 2019 ... and this virus is/was as contagious as most of us think it is - then the virus "spread" would "take off" from this starting line. One case would become two cases would become four cases would become, at some point probably in a few months, MILLIONS of cases.
If I'm characterizing Will's theory correctly, he is saying that a few people in a few communities did have Covid or were infected by this virus, but for some reason it really wasn't spreading from person to person at any big clip. The cases were "isolated." In other words, the virus became more "transmissible" or virulent many months later (beginning in late March and early April). Will does state (I believe) that mutations of any virus occur (which is accepted) and, presumably, the future mutations were much more contagious than the earlier versions.
On the other hand, I happen to think this virus was contagious from the get-go. In fact, it would become less contagious the more people who had already contracted it and acquired natural immunity.
I actually think infections were beginning to peter out by April 2020. The reason I think this is because reports of people having cold and flu type symptoms in April were much lower than these reports were in November-early March. Since I think spikes of the virus are seasonal, I think we had another big wave beginning in the fall and winter of 2020-2021.
While tens of millions of people had probably already been infected by the lock-down dates of mid-March 2020, the majority of Americans had yet to be infected so there was plenty of people who could still get infected and sick the next ILI season.
There is an obvious blind spot present in most of the analysis of the CoVid disaster, namely PCR diagnostic tests. PCR was discovered in 1983 by Kary Mullis as a laboratory tool with high analytical specificity in looking for small amounts of targeted genomic sequences. The use of PCR as a diagnostic tool was never established, in fact it was a total disaster in a 2007 outbreak of pertussis in New Hampshire where it proved to produce 100% false positives. Without a valid diagnostic test, it’s impossible to determine cases and spread. The entire Covid pandemic spread was based on fraud.
I agree. The PCR tests were the "key to the operation" to stoke massive fear, hysteria and panic. That's why "cases" were sky-rocketing in ... April 2020 (!). The "cases" were inflated by probably 90 percent.
As much as I think the PCR tests were a scam, I do note that they were not being widely administered until AFTER the lockdowns. What if these tests had been administered to large numbers of people in February or January? The evidence of "early spread" would have been undeniable. I think officials intentionally delayed the testing of PCR tests until after the lockdowns. I also think they suppressed the wide-spread use of antibody tests until May ... to conceal even more evidence of "early spread."
I also think the "cutoff values" on the "authorized" antibody tests may have been manipulated to produce fewer "positives." So this would be the exact opposite of what they did with the PCR tests, which were manipulated to produce maximum numbers of positive cases.
I'm sure some people think the science establishment wouldn't try to manipulate the early antibody tests, but I'm not in this group. Look at what they did with the PCR tests. Of course, they will manipulate "diagnostic" tests to get the results they are looking for.
IMO any mention of the PCR TEST discredits any discussion. It was a totally fraudulent test, never supposed to be used diagnostically, with a 95% false positive result.
If you've done as deep a dive into "early spread" as I have, you'd learn that the ONLY way to "confirm" an "early case" is by one of these PCR tests. And the PCR tests weren't even being used (except for very few people) in January 2020. So my question has always been: How the hell do you "confirm" an early case? They don't count the antibody tests. Bottom-line: They've rigged the system where there can't be any "confirmed" evidence of early infections. Clever (or sneaky), but that's their m.o. Control the tests and the definitions.
...And then they used the PCR tests to make sure we all thought everyone was being infected in the spring of 2020.
Pandemic of PCR TEST.
100% CORRECT
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/march/16/the-coronavirus-hoax/
It was a fairly quick read
While Will’s main conclusion - substantial or real spread almost certainly began in Wuhan - doesn’t necessarily match my hypothesis..
I sent Will my copiously annotated article on early spread in the US and Northern Europe.
Will replied that he could not run it because it seemed pro-China, and that he had lost PayPal access twice for that sin, and was unwilling to risk his livelihood again.
Can you email it to me?
wjricejunior@gmail.com
Only one fatal mistake; they're all hoaxes!
I see it circulating even earlier. https://clownbasket.substack.com/p/covid-18-omicron-and-some-things
Thanks for the link and the in-depth analysis, theorizing. The more I research this, the farther back my "start date" goes. I've read and received many testimonials from people who say they had it in the spring of 2019 and as early as March. And some people say they had it in 2018. Keep digging and thinking outside the box!
You're in sync with Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director General of the US National Institutes of Health.
Francis opined that "the Coronavirus might have been spreading quietly in humans for years, or even decades, without causing a detectable outbreak."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjdtZz78ejyAhXn63MBHdRxBRIQFnoECAQQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scmp.com%2Fnews%2Fchina%2Fscience%2Farticle%2F3077442%2Fcoronavirus-pathogen-could-have-been-spreading-humans-decades&usg=AOvVaw01NpEZNKWwpLXVbeQTu2rN
Circulating is right :)
As demonstrated in that substack, I was using the term circulating even back then. OG anti-spreader. ;)
We've talked about this a lot so I don't want to rehash it all again, but if you remember very early on, they WERE doing antibody testing in NYC.
And it turns out that 25% of samples from the city were positive for antibodies.
Meaning that millions and millions of cases had been missed -- in NYC alone.
This fact would have blown up the entire narrative, so we stopped doing this sort of testing.
--------------
APRIL 27, 2020:
Regionally, the results suggest:
24.7% positive in New York City
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/coronavirus-antibodies-present-in-nearly-25-of-all-nyc-residents/
I also look at who was doing "early" antibody tests and where the tests were being performed. For example, I've found one NY hospital that came up with its own in-house antibody assay and tested their employees with it. The percentage positive was far higher than most of the other "authorized" tests (probably done by Abbott or Quest or some friend of the government diagnostic company).
I've tried to make a good deal of the antibody results of one clinic in Delray Beach that began testing for antibodies in March (far earlier than most clinics). Between some point in March and early May, the clinic did 500 antibody tests. 200 of the results (40 percent!) came back positive. How can this clinic produce such high positive rates when most of the other clinics that began testing in May were barely producing any positives?
One might say this clinic was using a "junk test." Okay, if this is the case, why hasn't anyone sued this clinic for their copious "false positive" results?
In other words, who was doing the antibody tests was important. The private or independent labs/organizations kept producing much higher rates of "positives." This is a tell IMO.
In your article you mentioned the 39 blood donor group. I assume you know that blood is pooled by type (A- AB+ etc) then processed into 4 different uses, the largest of which is whole blood for transfusions. So if the Red Cross tested after pooling then one donor would infect the whole batch. If tested before the pooling then it would be on an isolated pint of blood from one donor.
Thanks. I'd never heard that. However, this tranche of blood had already been set aside for study. The study was "re-purposed" to test for Covid antibodies ... so that must mean there was no pooling of blood units in these two tranches. Plus, they wouldn't have made the conclusions they did if blood had been pooled with other donated blood.
I do wonder why more tranches of "archived" blood weren't tested. Surely, this was not the only Red Cross blood that could have been tested. Also, several other organizations also collect blood so it's not just the Red Cross that has blood sitting around in refrigerators or freezers.
I also note that the news coming out of Wuhan as of Dec. 31, 2019 was almost immediately perceived as "the big one" for epidemiologists and virus sleuths. Four-alarm fire warning signals were sent out across the scientific community.
It seems to me that one of the fist steps public health officials would have made is to identify and protect units of blood that had already been collected. The thought being: "we can test this blood to see if perhaps this virus had been spreading in America."
So I would have sent a memo to our friends at the RC and the other blood collection organizations: "Save some tranches of your blood for future testing. Don't 'pool' all of the blood."
I would have also have started collecting my own blood everywhere I could immediately. I understand that there wasn't a "Covid antibody test" on Dec. 31, 2019 ... but everyone in the science community would have known that such a test was going to be rapidly developed. Producing a new type antibody test is not that great a challenge.
From my research, I know that China was testing blood for antibodies in January 2020.
This thought exercise is another example of the the things that "should" have happened ... that didn't happen. In other words, someone intentionally decided to not issue such a memo or chose to not start on the project of collecting as much testable blood as possible as early as possible. I call this the "dog that didn't bark" evidence.
I think certain officials wanted to conceal evidence that might posit "early spread" ... probably because they knew that early spread had already happened.
Bingo.
Thanks. Also, this is a new Substack, which I highly recommend. The author has already provided excellent source material on this topic that I had missed. She knows her stuff ... and has a colorful style and pugnacious attitude.