How mass testing creates the illusion of "spread".
Including an interesting experiment with AI.
We recently posted an article arguing that there was - when examined critically - no evidence that anything was “spreading” in spring 2020, and that all observations suggesting there was are explainable as an artefact of the rollout of mass testing, using technologies which don’t measure what we think they are measuring, and suffer from (if measuring anything useful at all) ruinous over-sensitivity and non-specificity.
In that article, we cited this YouTube video:
The video is well worth watching, but for some might be too technical.
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a more digestible way of absorbing the core messages, like 2 people chatting about the same content that’s in the video?
So Jonathan decided to do something he’s been meaning to do for ages - experiment with Google NotebookLM, which is capable of taking a source (document, video etc) and creating a 2-person conversation about it.
You can listen to the 15 minute audio output here:
We think it did a good job keeping key points intact.
However there are some aspects of the video - also reflected in the “two-person podcast” - with which we don’t agree.
Most notably, the video creator (“Ragnar Danneskjold”) seems to have much greater confidence in the ability to identify through testing the causes of influenza-like-illness (and deaths therefrom) than we do – or at least he did in April 2020, when the video was uploaded.
However, at its core, he’s arguing something that we both agree with:
The rollout of mass testing into a population with an infinite number of people in which a pre-existing “something”1 can easily create the impression of spread.
Network effects (whereby someone “tests positive”, tells others who have been in contact who then decide to “get tested”, a proportion of whom will also be “positive”) constitute a powerful positive feedback loop.
Government propaganda about the importance of such testing (remember Tedros’ “test, test, test”?) and the dangerousness of “the virus” act to augment the effect.
Though not emphasized in Rangar's video, it is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that there is no good evidence that the testing was in any case specific for one (purported) pathogen - something Jonathan and others have written a lot about, for example:
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that if the testing is basically picking up the common cold, then the effect of the feedback loop - and the perception of an emergency - is magnified substantially.
If the "something" is what makes tests turn positive, that something WAS there for a while and widely distributed. But we make no concessions as to what that something actually was.
 | A guest post by
|
AND had resident return last week after sent to ER for eval for possible UTI, had diarrhea. WT ACTUAL FUCK still testing WITH NO SYMPTOMS!! triggered a "covid protocol" at the nursing home. About to report this fucking place for MEDICARE FRAUD for unnecessary testing!
There never was or is today a genuine test for any of the coronaviruses and the use of the PCR test was always a fraud as confirmed by the inventor and Nobel prize winner Dr Kary Mullis.
The most senior doctor at Berlins Charity Hospital, Dr Drosden agreed until the WHO decided to encourage him to change his mind and say that the polymerase chain reaction was suitable. PCR is used and is only suitable for DNA analysis and cannot be used for any viral search.
To add to the fraud the other test using the Natural Flow test was equally misleading giving the impression that infection was present. But the question remains why were we all looking for such a minor infection that if caught gave the recipient a 98.88% chance of survival?