• Home
  • Occam's Razor Challenge
  • They tell us clearly
  • Mind Control
  • About staged events
    • What, why, how
    • Hallmarks
    • Precedence
  • Wikileaks & controlled opposition
    • Vince Emanuele, Veteran for Peace
  • 9/11
    • Collapse of WTC-7 >
      • Why collapse WTC-7 by perfect implosion on 9/11?
      • WTC-7 - Seven vantage points
      • WTC-7 Symmetry
    • 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured a lie >
      • 9/11 - Dead body
      • LHO Shot TV/Photo comparison
    • Four faked plane crashes
    • Gerard Holmgren - Satire
  • 9/11 - A Proper Gander
  • 9/11 & COVID-19: The Parallels
  • Sandy Hook Massacre
  • Manchester Bombing
  • Chronology of psyops
    • Pearl Harbour
    • Nuclear weapons hoax
    • JFK - Fake assassination
    • Bologna 1980 and Mogadishu 2017
    • Battle of Mogadishu 1993
    • Srebrenica Massacre
    • Anthrax attacks after 9/11
    • BS? You tell me
  • Analysts
  • About Me
  • Blog
OCCAM'S RAZOR ON TERROR EVENTS
  • Home
  • Occam's Razor Challenge
  • They tell us clearly
  • Mind Control
  • About staged events
    • What, why, how
    • Hallmarks
    • Precedence
  • Wikileaks & controlled opposition
    • Vince Emanuele, Veteran for Peace
  • 9/11
    • Collapse of WTC-7 >
      • Why collapse WTC-7 by perfect implosion on 9/11?
      • WTC-7 - Seven vantage points
      • WTC-7 Symmetry
    • 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured a lie >
      • 9/11 - Dead body
      • LHO Shot TV/Photo comparison
    • Four faked plane crashes
    • Gerard Holmgren - Satire
  • 9/11 - A Proper Gander
  • 9/11 & COVID-19: The Parallels
  • Sandy Hook Massacre
  • Manchester Bombing
  • Chronology of psyops
    • Pearl Harbour
    • Nuclear weapons hoax
    • JFK - Fake assassination
    • Bologna 1980 and Mogadishu 2017
    • Battle of Mogadishu 1993
    • Srebrenica Massacre
    • Anthrax attacks after 9/11
    • BS? You tell me
  • Analysts
  • About Me
  • Blog
OCCAM'S RAZOR ON TERROR EVENTS

Debunking the debunkers: exposure of fraud stands strong

22/8/2020
The presentation of both argument and counter argument (and sometimes counter counter argument) can be very helpful to the lay person because if there is weakness in the original argument that the lay person is unable to appreciate the counter argument may point it out in a way that is understandable while obvious weak counter argument can aid confidence in the original argument.

With the alleged COVID-19 pandemic the configuration of items for the argument claiming scientific fraud vs those for the argument against claims of fraud strongly favours the credibility of the argument claiming fraud over the counter argument:

1. Argument showing scientific fraud (article author/s)
2. Alleged debunking (fact-checker)
3. Rebuttal of debunking (article author/s)
4. Absence of response to rebuttal​

Below are two examples of mainstream science being exposed as fraudulent that follow the above configuration.
In the first case I'll present links to each article in the chain, a brief summary of the original article and my own debunking which I made before I realised the authors had done their own debunking.
​In the second case I'll simply provide the links to each article in the chain. The article and fact-check were both originally written in Italian but the Translate function works reasonably well.

COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
The icing on the poisoned swab cake, Dr Stefano Scoglio


COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
1. Argument showing scientific fraud - Jun 27, 2020
2. Alleged debunking (PolitiFact) - Jul 7, 2020
3. Rebuttal of debunking - Jul 31, 2020
4. Absence of response to rebuttal

A very detailed and thorough case is presented by two independent journalists, Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, in their article, COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, published in OffGuardian in June 2020, showing that PCR tests are scientifically meaningless and although it's not stated bluntly, we can infer from their article that there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the alleged virus, SARS-CoV-2, or the alleged illness it causes, COVID-19. This article supports other evidence of a non-scientific nature that also suggests that there is no special virus and all death and illness ascribed to COVID-19 is from other causes, that is, the usual.

Summary of article but recommend reading it
--- No distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19
--- Admitted lack of gold standard test for COVID-19
--- PCR test used inappropriate for viral testing (its purpose was manufacturing not testing). Clear example: 
Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
--- No clear evidence of origin of RNA used in test
--- Authors of scientific papers claiming isolation of virus admit that purification of virus not actually done and seasoned virologist admits lack of awareness of any paper showing purification of virus
--- No evidence of what is said to be the virus, SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19
--- Test results are irrational (many individuals producing different results on multiple tests) which would only be expected when the testing method used is against scientific testing protocol
--- The test contains "q" in its name, 
RT-qPCR, which should stand for quantitative, however, it is admitted the test is qualitative meaning it cannot test viral load which means they cannot test how many viral particles are carried in the body. For people to be considered infected a viral load needs to be determined.
--- High Cycle Quantification (Cq) values undermine validity of test and some PCR tests have high Cq values (Drosten test has 45). The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis, has this to say: "
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR."
--- Before starting with PCR, 
in the case of presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR,” but this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,”

Daniel Funke is a staff writer covering online misinformation for PolitiFact, a fact-checking site, published by the Poynter Institute. His article, COVID19 PCR Tests are not 'scientifically' Meaningless, attempts to debunk the OffGuardian article with such abysmal argument that it's hard to credit.

Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter have written an open rebuttal of Politifact's alleged fact check ... and most unsurprisingly have not received a reply.
Open Letter: Refuting Politifact’s “fact check”

​I was unaware of this rebuttal and posted my own rebuttal below. If you want a layman's dumb version you can read it but I recommend the reading the authors' instead.

Very basic rebuttal
Let's through its four points one by one.

1. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim: '"Kary Mullis, "regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection."'
Politifact response: '
In a fact-check, Reuters rated that claim false — the source is a 1996 article about HIV/AIDS. It does not say PCR tests are ineffective for detecting viruses.'
From Reuters direct: '
Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote has been falsely attributed to the inventor, Kary Mullis, and has been taken out of context to falsify its original meaning.'

Failure of debunk: The debunk is not related to the claim made in the article.

The OffG article doesn't claim Mullis made this statement or any particular statement. When it says "he regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection" we can infer this comes from a quote in the article they link to made by David Crowe, who says:

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

One might argue, although the alleged debunking doesn't, that we only have David Crowe's word for it but it is true that PCR wasn't developed as a diagnostic tool and it has obvious limitations in that function thus there is no particular reason to doubt Crowe's claim about Mullis's thinking on PCR used as a diagnostic test. We might also argue that the article authors have slightly misrepresented Crowe's words but hardly worth a debunk and the debunking doesn't argue that point in any case, its argument is a strawman.

2. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim: 'There are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19.'
Politifact response: 'The CDC 
says otherwise.'

Failure of debunk: The CDC doesn't say otherwise at all.
In fact, quite the opposite. Nothing could scream "no distinctive specific symptoms" more than the CDC's webpage and it is very unsurprising that Funke simply puts a link without analysing how the CDC "says otherwise". There is a large array of symptoms that apply to many illnesses and diseases and the CDC makes no specifications about symptoms always suffered and rarer symptoms. Elsewhere, of course, we are told that sufferers can be asymptomatic.


People with COVID-19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported – ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2-14 days after exposure to the virus. People with these symptoms may have COVID-19:
  • Fever or chills
  • Cough
  • Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
  • Fatigue
  • Muscle or body aches
  • Headache
  • New loss of taste or smell
  • Sore throat
  • Congestion or runny nose
  • Nausea or vomiting
  • Diarrhea
This list does not include all possible symptoms. CDC will continue to update this list as we learn more about COVID-19.

3. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim: 'The existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.'
Politifact response: '
Several researchers have analyzed the genetic material of the coronavirus — including its RNA.'

Failure of debunk: The authors point out that there is no paper showing the virus has been isolated which is a prerequisite for analysing genetic material and thus the claim that "
Several researchers have analyzed the genetic material" simply does not stand up.

4. Politifact assertion: OffG article makes inaccurate claim:  'Between 22% and 77% "of the ‘positive’ tests are false ‘positives.’
Politifact response: 'Currently, about 92% of tests in the United States 
produce negative results.'

Failure of debunk: The authors are talking about the percentage of positive tests that produce false positives while the debunk simply states the percentage of tests in the US that produce negative results. The statements are completely unrelated.

The icing on the poisoned swab cake, Dr Stefano Scoglio
1. Article - Mar 15, 2020
2. Attempted debunking by fact-checker, Facta - Nov 6, 2020
3. Rebuttal by author - Nov 10, 2020
4. Absence of response to rebuttal

14 Comments
Monty
23/9/2020 11:01:24 pm

Thanks for going to this trouble. It seems that just having the existence of a 'debunking article' is enough to make people doubt something without checking the 'debunking article' itself.

It is assumed that the there is a 'greater good' looking out for us that has accurate information that we can just trust without having to do any of the work ourselves.

As result, pseudo intellectuals run around with debunking articles on the tip of their tongues as 'patriots of the truth'.

It is unfortunate that this level of disinformation and stupidity are so rife.

We must do our own critical analyses as always.

This requires some brain juice.

Reply
Penelope
11/12/2020 04:32:13 pm

--I think there's an antibody test for covid, no? So even tho PCR is garbage. . . .
--Is it NOT the case that other viruses too cannot be purified cuz they can exist only inside of cells?
--I think the evidence was advanced against permitting high-cycle PCR tests that covid could be cultured only from those positive tests which resulted from fewer cycles.

Reply
Petra
11/12/2020 04:38:03 pm

Not sure if there's an antibody test, however, there are two very clear obstacles before you even get to testing for the virus:

1. There is no evidence of purification of the alleged SARS-CoV-2.
2. There is no evidence for any infectious agent causing the alleged COVID-19.

Without a distinctive set of symptoms (as evidenced on the CDC website) and without increased mortality figures there is simply zero evidence for virus, virus illness or pandemic.

Badger Down
18/10/2020 04:58:39 pm

Thank you, M Razor, for your layman's debunk. It is most helpful.

Reply
Fact checker lol actually just some random guy
15/2/2021 03:54:25 pm

Ironically, this whole argument is based on a straw dog inferred from a single OffGuardian article and the subsequent 'rebuttal', that being that PCR tests are useless because the inventor of PCR didn't envision using it for viral detection, the virus hasn't been isolated and that that their aren't quantitative alternatives for detecting infection like antibody or antigen testing and that there's no generalised symptoms associated with a Sars-Cov-2 infection, all of which are false or hyperbolic claims of which the argument and counter arguments have been built on.

On Sars-Cov-2 isolation and genomic sequencing:
In Australia: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50569
In USA: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/
In Italy: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25794
In Korea: https://synapse.koreamed.org/upload/SynapseData/PDFData/0063JKMS/jkms-35-e84.pdf
In France: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03869-w
In India: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7366528/
In Egypt: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123220302381
In China: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947.3
In Russia:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S120197122030566X
In Brazil: https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0074-02762020000100344

It can be inferred after reading those papers that Sars-Cov-2 has been isolated and sequenced in multiple countries across the globe.

On PCR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166093408003947 (over 10 years ago i.e. it's been used for viral detection pre-covid)
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013596/full

After reading the above it should be obvious there is a clear utility for PCR testing in detecting the presence of Sars-Cov-2 regardless of its inventor's original intentions.

Review of detection methods:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32739797/
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acscentsci.0c00501#
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/8/1930/5822173
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08998280.2020.1829261
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsnano.0c02624
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956566320304486

While PCR is widely used, it isn't used in a vacuum, and certainly isn't 'useless'.

Sars-Cov-2 mechanisms of action:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/all.14364
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2020.00518/full
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234765
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016508520304480

It should be obvious that many of the signs and symptoms of Covid-19 is the body going into an immune response, however there is additional evidence for it's impacts on gastrointestinal, neurological and cardiovascular systems above and beyond the average flu, including long-term damage.

It seems that the author of this page is personally invested in conspiracy theories, has previously written articles for OffGuardian themselves and appears to be highly susceptible to confirmation bias. Be careful what you read, stay objective and stay positive.



Reply
A dumb layman
16/2/2021 06:03:07 pm

WWWOOOWWW THHIS MAKES SO MUCH SEEENNSSSWEE

Reply
Petra
16/2/2021 09:38:18 pm

"a straw dog from a single OffGuardian article"

Not sure what you mean by this exactly. Logically, whether there's one or a hundred or a thousand articles doesn't really figure as an argument, it's the content that counts.

It is rather you who are strawmanning.

The authors of the article do not state that PCR is not fit for purpose simply because its inventor did not envisage it for that purpose, they give more pertinent reasons but include that as a support and the inventor himself didn't envisage it as a diagnostic tool simply because it's not up to that task as they point out.

All you've done is list a whole lot of articles that you intend to mean of themselves prove what they purport but the authors of the article recognise the articles purport isolation, however, they point out that the papers, in fact, don't because the electron micrographs provided do not show purified virus particles as admitted by the paper authors themselves.

Reply
Fact checker lol
17/2/2021 04:41:46 pm

Well if it's the content that matters the content is build on a baloney arguement, it's obvious you haven't read any of the articles that were listed, even just the first one listed shows isolation, electron micrographs and isolation of the virus
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50569 if you can be bothered to copy and paste it in to a browser rather than just deny deny deny

PCR is a qualitative detection measure of the Sars-Cov-2 virus, which your article even admits. The CDC's new PCR tests have tests for strains of influenza as well as Sars-Cov-2, so if you're sick with respiratory symptoms they can at least rule out the flu in the one test, where antibody testing shows the immune response has been activated in response to Sars-Cov-2 in the system.

Some 'analyst' you are

Reply
Petra
17/2/2021 08:34:22 pm

If you watch this video for a few seconds just after the bookmarked spot you'll see a page with responses from five science teams on their papers alleging isolation of the virus. The first response is from the science team responsible for the MJA paper you link to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=341&v=EWNkJUDctdk&feature=youtu.be


Question:
Do your electron micrographs show purified virus particles?

Response from MJA team

"The nucleic acid extraction was performed on isolate material recovered from infected cells. This material was not centrifuged, so was not purified through sucrose gradient to have a density band as such. The EM images were obtained directly from cell culture material."

Even if the virus were isolated there's no scientific work showing that it or any other infectious agent is causing the alleged COVID-19 - if you have a link to anything that purports to do that, please give it to me.

This article provides evidence that causality has not been proven.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/

Reply
Fact checker lol
18/2/2021 07:53:44 am

so when the pcr amplified the dna and was reinserted what was infecting the cells and not the control?
and what genome was sequeneces?
and kocks postulates are for bacteria
viruses don't replicate by themselves and kocks postulates aren't valid
the coronavirus, a form of retrovirus, inserts its rna into a host cell to make copies of it self, sequence that rna and you have the code it will replicate itself with
there's clearly enough evidence there to induce and deduce that sars-cov-2 infects human cells

there's a bunch of peer reviewed links above check em out

Reply
Petra Liverani
18/2/2021 01:08:28 pm

"Peer-reviewed" means zero when a Psychological Operation has been perpetrated inducing mass hypnosis.

It is very simple:

1. There is no evidence of isolation of the alleged SARS-CoV-2

2. Even if there were there is no evidence of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 or any other infectious agent causing the alleged COVID-19.

This is a good analysis of the fraudulent science evinced in the MJA article “Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient
diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia”

http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/blog/files/Virus-isolation-revised.pdf

Fact checker lol
18/2/2021 06:53:42 pm

Hahaha peer-reviewed no means psyop? Now your ignorance is reaaaallly showing

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-00459-7?elqTrackId=683faafeca864130bb49fe1e7904ebed

If Qureshi cared to read any other article than his own website maybe he might have half a clue, maybe you might too?

Reply
Petra
24/10/2021 11:44:44 am

You just tell lies so you don't have to think. Triple-prestigious-award-winning Dr Qureshi writes critiques of the papers you put forward as gospel so of course he needs to read them to do a critique, doesn't he?

Reply
Maria C link
17/6/2022 09:05:00 pm

This is a greatt post

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Analyse the fakery the power elite is drowning us in.

    Archives

    August 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    August 2019

    Categories

    All
    9/11
    Controlled Demolition
    Propaganda

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly