Analysis Opinion

Coronacircus Revisionism

In previous posts we suggested that the current respiratory disease that is being called “Covid-19” may be caused by something else than a coronavirus.

To be sure, lethality is greatly exaggerated, the fear-mongering by the various propaganda outlets is undeniable, and the attacks on our individual liberties is egregious. Still, peculiar symptoms of hypoxia, and strange deaths (overwhelmingly of geriatric patients with many comorbidities), however rare, seem to be happening. What is less certain is the actual cause.

Indeed there are many things that just aren’t adding up:

  • The disease is in a category of its own; if it was caused by a natural virus, we would be able to trace its evolution. We likely would have seen the gradual appearance of some of the new symptoms that have caught the medical establishment unprepared. However, they are utterly novel; doctors are saying they have seen nothing like it before.
  • The disease has very irregular geographical preferences. Its strongly heterogeneous distribution is correlated with none of the usual variables; neither temperature and season; nor preparedness and active mitigation strategies; and not population density, proximity to clusters, or anything else that would make sense.
  • Containment and mitigation measures (such as stringent lockdowns) seem to have no effect; in Europe, the case of Sweden is of most interest (see here, here and here).
  • All the predictive propagation models were, and this is now admitted, utterly wrong. The only honest way to explain this is if some fundamental assumptions were wrong too.
  • Studies are indicating some people are not developing an immunity. People are falling ill, recovering, and falling ill again. Such “reinfections”, merely weeks later, are very peculiar to say the least; so much that propaganda outlets are trying to explain it through freak coincidences akin to Ptolemaic epicycles (if one refuses to question one’s base assumptions one is forced to rely on circumvoluted arguments).
  • Prof. Raoult, director of the hospital that has seen the most “Covid” patients, says that some people dying of the Covid disease do not have the virus in their system at all.

Here is another way to put it: the “new coronavirus” may very well be a relatively benign and hugely prevalent virus (and indeed some studies suggest it may be 100 times more prevalent (archive) than previously thought). Because it is so prevalent, and because the tests’ false positive rates are so high anyway, it is very likely that people who die from the strange respiratory disease called “Covid-19” end-up testing positive for the “new coronavirus”. A false causation is thus strengthened because that is the working (however unproven) hypothesis; that would therefore be a case of confounding and confirmation bias.

Remember Popper’s famous falsifiability argument, which now underpins the scientific method: it is impossible to prove a theory in extremis, but it is very easy to disprove one. You just need a reproducible, contradictory result. In other words, a theory is only deemed correct insofar as it hasn’t been falsified yet. Hasn’t the “coronavirus causing Covid” theory been falsified yet? In our humble estimation, it likely has.

A more politically correct way to put it would be to say: a strong case is to be made that there exists a cofactor that we are currently not seeing.

So then the question becomes: what cofactor? What may really be causing these rare instances of hypoxia and respiratory distress? We cannot answer peremptorily, but we can present some of the hypotheses we have come across; some plausible, others a bit less so. We will be doing so in a series of forthcoming posts.

Hopefully this may be useful to someone somewhere with more investigative resources than we have.

UPDATE, connex articles: