COVID Calamity: Counting ‘Cases’ Not Deaths Is Crazy!
By this point anyone who’s informed about the virus knows that the count of “cases” — which doesn’t actually mean people showing symptoms — is an absurd metric on which to base policy, for numerous reasons I’ve covered in the past.
Spikes in “cases” in various parts of the world have led the global midwit population to make all kinds of predictions about deaths that have consistently failed to materialize.
But we discovered — from the New York Times, of all places! — within the past week or two that the “case” metric is even more absurd than we could have imagined.
As I noted in this space eight days ago, the New York Times ran the headline: “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.”
We learned there that as many as 90 percent of positive COVID results were for people who were not contagious, and were therefore being ordered to quarantine and isolate for no reason.
It has to do with the PCR test and something called the “cycle threshold,” which in the United States is set in most labs at a cutoff of around 40 or 37 instead of a more reasonable 30.
Anyway, Phil Kerpen of American Commitment was curious about the situation in the District of Columbia, so he contacted the health authorities there to ask what cycle threshold they’re using for their tests (so we can get a sense of the extent to which their tabulation of “cases,” already a notoriously unhelpful metric, is truly ludicrous).
After contacting them, Phil noted:
“If it is 37 to 40 like Nevada, New York, and Massachusetts then up to 90% of reported positives are from noninfectious, months-old viral debris.”
Well, DC Health got back to him.
“DC Health does not have information about cycle thresholds.”
What kind of a joke is this?
As one commenter put it, “What’s worse? If they’re lying or if they really don’t have any?”
Meanwhile, our supposedly nonpolitical expert, Dr. Fauci (who revealed last week that he hopes the COVID crisis will lead to the adoption of something akin to the Green New Deal), to my knowledge has not acknowledged any of this.
The other day he said the case count was unacceptably high heading into flu season, without acknowledging this report and the fact that we now know the “case count” is wildly inflated.
We are truly living in a giant insane asylum.
More from Tom Woods at www.supportinglisteners.com
About the author: Thomas Ernest Woods Jr. is an American author, historian and libertarian who is currently a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. Woods is a New York Times Best-Selling author and has published twelve books.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Dev
| #
The “casedemic” the adopted terminology is a farcicle issue that fails somehow to negate the overarching fact that the pcr does not actually test for a virus.
It tests for strands supposedly of a particle that could merely be remnant representatives of any previous corona strain – such is the efficacy of the indirect process of abstraction of what is supposed to be a precise branch of medical research.
The Trojan “covid” horse is of sufficient magnitude to usher in ecofascist agendas not least brexit without the exit. CV19 also provides excellent camouflage for deleterious EM induced symptoms!
Reply
Tom O
| #
In the past, when it came to flu seasons, “case count” was always stopped because it could induce panic in the population. Surprise! COVID case count induces panic in the population!
The intent of the case counting is just exactly that – to keep the sheeple in a case of perpetual panic, otherwise you can’t train them to kneel on demand, lick your boot when told, or perform whatever act you choose because they are afraid not to.
Reply