I find that viruses are probable, but not definite, in this post: https://ilki.substack.com/p/is-microbiology-real . Although previous viruses may not have been weaponized, Covid definitely seems to be so, as Igor has said lately.
Which version of "viruses" are you talking about? I wrote about this on Igor's substack a while ago (I'll put it in a full article sometime). One version is the nanoscale particle produced as the result of Johan Ender's "viral isolation" technique. Another version is a contagious nanoscale particle found and transferred in human body fluids which causes illness and disease. The latter has never been proven to exist empirically.
So the nanoscale RNA or DNA encapsulating particles produced by Johan Ender's "viral isolation" technique which have never been empirically proven to exist in diseased human tissue in a living host (such as a sore throat, runny nose, coughing lung, etc), and never been proven to be transferrable or contagious in body fluids of any kind in a detectable measure? Those particles?
See, this is part of the problem when discussing virology. Core entities, like "virus", are so ill-defined that it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation about them without specifying meanings and definitions beforehand.
When you say 'virus', what are you talking about exactly, Lloyd? 'Viruses made of RNA and DNA' is entirely nonsensical as a definition. 'Viruses' in the Johan Enders sense are protein-lipid encapsulated nanoparticles (some might say extracellular vesicles) made by DNA instructions and other cellular machinery in the cell nucleus. They are not 'made of' RNA or DNA in the slightest, but they might 'contain' RNA or DNA.
However, this definition is purely biocharacteristic, defining the particle by its properties. A fuller definition must also include the particle's functions, and this is where virology and mythology meet. There is scant proof that a 'virus', the particle biocharacterised and described since Enders 1953, is a contagious particle, is replication-competent, is invasive, and most important of all: causes disease in a living host.
There's no empirical evidence of those assertions in virology's own literature at all. All we have is a baseless assumption that whenever a virologist takes a sample from a sick person (spit, sputum, brochial lavage, urine, etc), "the virus" is floating around in there somewhere and it can be multiplied with Enders methodology. Except Stefan Lanka proved (2015-present) you can multiply 'virus' in a cell culture as per Ender's method without adding ANY 'virus' or sample to begin with. The particles were not replicated from a sick person's sample, because none was added to the cell culture; the 'virus' particles isolated by Lanka in his control experiments were produced by the cells themselves - extracellular vesicles produced during cytopathy.
For 'contagious virus' theory to be irrefutably correct, the following steps need to be empirically proven:
1. Isolate a nanoscale 'virus' particle from a patient sample, including complete biocharacterisation and RNA/DNA sequencing.
2. Introduce that particle to a cell culture and let it multiply, killing the host cells
3. Re-isolate the particle after all the cells are dead
4. Compare particle isolated in step 3 to particle isolated in step 1. If they are identical in biocharacterisation and RNA/DNA code, plausible causation can be established - that particle, and not something else, killed the cells and thus could be a cause of disease.
Steps 1-4 as described above have never been attempted or proven by any virologist ever. And until they are, I'm going to maintain my cautious but mostly critical view of the current 'science' of virology - it is dubious at best, based on one totally unproven assumption: the virus is always in the human sample no matter what. No! Prove it! Prove its there, and prove its the same at the start and the finish.
1. Since vaxed people seem to get Covid more, not less, is there anything in the Covid vaxes that would cause that? Since other vaxes have been known to be contaminated with viruses, is it possible or probable that Covid vaxes are contaminated with Covid viruses?
2. When anyone gets Covid, which cells get infected first?
3. Covid contains RNA, not DNA. Is there more than one strand of RNA in each virus and how long is each strand?
4. An article is titled, "The COVID-19 virus may not insert genetic material into human DNA" (2021). It says the virus doesn’t have the necessary machinery to insert itself into human DNA. Do you have reason to think that's true or untrue? Why would the body allow foreign RNA into its DNA? And how would it do it?
5. What causes the virus to attach to a cell?
6. Do you know what Covid genome sequence causes its RNA to enter a cell?
7. And do you know how the virus replicates and disperses?
8. Considering Hillman's warnings below, do you have reason to think that mainstream microbiology is sound or unsound and, if so, what are your main reasons, stated briefly?
_I share your skepticism about viruses etc, but I'm apparently less skeptical than you. You may well have more definitive info than I do, so my skepticism is prone to increase, if it seems warranted. The reason I'm not more skeptical so far is that it's plausible to me that viruses could be real, just as computer viruses are real. And viruses seem to explain cancers and numerous other diseases. Virus doubters don't seem to dispute the claim that DNA and RNA are real and that they program for the production of proteins. I don't know if they also produce lipids, glycoproteins etc. Do you? 3D printers use computers to manufacture objects, so the computer code controls production of such objects. It seems possible for anyone to make programs (computer code) that would produce objects that destroy computers in 3D printers, which would be a kind of physical virus.
_You said viruses "are not 'made of' RNA or DNA in the slightest, but they might 'contain' RNA or DNA." I understand that the RNA or DNA is what causes a virus to enter cells and get replicated and dispersed, because RNA/DNA is genetic code that controls replication. If virologists can show which sequence causes a virus to enter a cell and which sequence causes it to get replicated, I'll be more strongly inclined to accept virus theory.
_You said "There is scant proof that a 'virus', the particle biocharacterised and described since Enders 1953, is a contagious particle, is replication-competent, is invasive, and most important of all: causes disease in a living host. There's no empirical evidence of those assertions in virology's own literature at all."
_Have you asked any of the other Substack authors to discuss that? I'd be interested in discussing with you and them in a group.
_MejBCart provided answers to my questions above, but her answers probably aren't thorough enough so far.
Cheers Lloyd. I'm the same JP as over at Thunderbolts forum, mate.
Most of your questions above (numbered 1-8) have unsubstantiated assumptions undergirding them. Question one requires a defined clinical definition of what "COVID" is as a unique disease in humans; you've only assumed that it is a unique, novel illness never before seen prior to December 2019 (the symptoms are not novel or unique). Questions two through seven exhibit constant interchange between "COVID" as the disease, and "COVID" or "virus" as the alleged causative agent "SARS-COV-2".
Anyway, let me answer them to the best of my knowledge.
1. The question assumes positive COVID diagnosis in the vaccinated, which far exceeds the unvaccinated statistically, is of clinical or statistical importance. Both aspects are flawed. "COVID-19" as a clinical disease is defined as (WHO 2020): "A positive PCR test." And a positive PCR test (or nowadays, RAT) is defined as: "Clinical COVID-19 illness." It's a circular argument that cannot have statistical importance, and that isn't even starting to break open the non-specificity of "COVID-19" clinical symptoms (runny nose, loss of taste & smell, shortness of breath etc - I get these after a 10km run outside in winter), or the uselessness of both PCR and RAT testing regimes. The 'large numbers' of vaxxed getting "COVID" cannot be ruled out as mere blood poisoning after the (repeated) injection of a toxic substance into their body causing 'symptoms', and positive tests 'proving' it is COVID does not follow.
2. There is no evidence that "COVID" is a unique disease, so it remains unascertained what the causal agent is, or what effects occur on the human body or individual cells. Toxicological analysis post Wuhan 2019 have never been done to conclusively eliminate chemical causes for the clinical symptoms of the alleged novel disease.
3. While it is true that some extracellular, virus-like particles contain RNA, there are few, if at all any, instances of these strands undergoing whole-genome sequencing (e.g. Sanger) to determine their length and encoding details. What happens instead is a pot-pourri of genetic and chemical material - a human sample of e.g. saliva also containing natural bacterium and fungi; an animal cell culture, e.g. Vero 6 cells from a green monkey kidney; a bovine (calf) serum extracted from the heart of a living calf foetus in an abbotoir; various antibiotics and antifungal chemicals - all of this is mixed together and fragments of genetic goo extracted, placed into a computer program which "sorts" the fragments into a "coherent" whole sequence, which is chopped, changed and edited according to the researchers whims until it resembles a "coronavirus" genome template (usually approx 30,000 basepairs long). If you can't see the glaring flaw with this method I cannot help you further.
4. The concept of the SARS-COV-2 particle inserting genetic code into the human genome has never been proven, because the particles whole genome sequence, from top to tail, has never been acquired. How can you determine whether a piece of its code ended up in a human cell nucleus if you don't know what the actual code is? Further, it needs to be eliminated that fragments of such code do not already exist within the human genome, or within the genomes of organisms that live in the human body (e.g. bacterium), false positives as it were.
5. Assumes there is a unique virus responsible and it is capable of attaching to cells. Neither of these statements have been proven regarding SARS-COV-2; they are assumed from other research on 'virus' particles.
6. See answers to questions 3 and 4.
7. Virus particles have never been proven to have replication-competency, as I covered in my post above. No-one has ever demonstrated that the particle ASSUMED to exist in the patient sample is the same as the particle "isolated" at the end of Enders 1953 'viral isolation' process. Dispersal of 'virus' is alleged to occur after cell death (cytopathy), whereby it should be easily proven that a sick person's interstitial fluid at the site of 'infection' is saturated with billions of viral particles. This proof has never been attempted by any virologist ever.
8. I agree with Hillman's criticisms that electron microscopy in particular is wont to leave an abundance of artifacts in the sample simply as a result of preparation and scanning methods.
You stated further, above: "If virologists can show which sequence causes a virus to enter a cell and which sequence causes it to get replicated, I'll be more strongly inclined to accept virus theory."
For me, the essential proof is demonstrating:
1. 'Virus' particles are in a patient sample;
2. They have been whole genome sequenced and biocharacterised;
3. They can be added to a suitable host cell culture (e.g. growing a lung virus SARS-COV-2 in monkey kidney cells is invalid) and replicate to such an extent that they kill the host cell(s);
4. The resulting multiplied particles at step three are identical in biocharacterisation and at least 99% identical genetically (allowing for chance modifications/insertions/deletions/duplications of the original genome) as the particles biocharacterised and sequenced in steps 1-2.
That's the first essential stepping stone which will allow Rivers postulates (1937) to be attempted for disease causation by these selfsame particles. Without those essential proofs, we're simply left with non-sequiturs and circular reasoning.
I wrote those 8 questions to see if virus experts could answer them all. If they can answer them thoroughly, then I'd have more confidence in virus theory. I know the PCR tests are BS. I don't know much about other tests. I get the impression that viruses are real and contribute to disease, but I'll have to look up all the evidence to be able to make the argument. A lot of people are much more knowledgeable than I am and they are persuaded that viruses are real and potentially harmful, so I figure they may know. That's what I'm trying to determine: whether their knowledge is solid. I don't know if your explanation of the virus identification process is entirely accurate, so maybe you can tell me where you get your info on that.
_I'll try to see if AMidwesternDoctor or Steve Kirsch or others can provide answers.
_Looks like you started your Substack in early September. Did you know of Substack before that? I found out about it when one of Miles Mathis' writers posted something on Substack about Covid. I think it's a rather good place to write and get a following. I have a good following on Thunderbolts, but I don't get much interaction. Not much here either yet, but prospects seem better here. I have four different Substacks, so I have a lot of writing to do. Someone recommended my Substack on Catastrophism to his/her readers, so I got a bunch of subscriptions lately.
A few points that you might find interesting. Your assertion that viruses 'cause' cancer is... simply epidemiological or, if you prefer (sigh) correlation =!= causation. If you want to think about this: HIV allegedly 'causes' cervical cancer, but not pancreatic... Does that make sense? Do you really think the doctors can explain that other that by saying 'I went to Harvard!'
RNA/DNA are obliquely related to a 'virus's' ability to enter a cell. The Dna configuration codes for the shape of the surrounding layer that interacts with the cell via a lock-key mechanism. On that topic, since only R/Dna are involved, I suppose that there are no lipids etc in viruses.
As for viruses attaching to cells -- we have absolutely no proof of this. Electron microscopy destroys the samples involved, so we have no sense of the dynamics of the process.
I see that you're aware of Hillman... would that science were actually real, and people would be funded for following up that line of thought.
I don't know if I read this post last October, but I read it now. I commented on a recent Youtube video about people in China supposedly dying of rampant Covid that I think it's more likely from the Covid vaxes. Jon's suggestion is better: it's the vaxes plus a lot of other things. I also mentioned that I don't think there's a cheap test for Covid that's reliable and I still think that's correct. The point was that they can claim lots of Covid deaths if the tests give a lot of false positives and I read that it's easy to increase false positives just by increasing the number of cycles permitted.
I find that viruses are probable, but not definite, in this post: https://ilki.substack.com/p/is-microbiology-real . Although previous viruses may not have been weaponized, Covid definitely seems to be so, as Igor has said lately.
Which version of "viruses" are you talking about? I wrote about this on Igor's substack a while ago (I'll put it in a full article sometime). One version is the nanoscale particle produced as the result of Johan Ender's "viral isolation" technique. Another version is a contagious nanoscale particle found and transferred in human body fluids which causes illness and disease. The latter has never been proven to exist empirically.
I'm talking about viruses made of RNA and DNA.
So the nanoscale RNA or DNA encapsulating particles produced by Johan Ender's "viral isolation" technique which have never been empirically proven to exist in diseased human tissue in a living host (such as a sore throat, runny nose, coughing lung, etc), and never been proven to be transferrable or contagious in body fluids of any kind in a detectable measure? Those particles?
See, this is part of the problem when discussing virology. Core entities, like "virus", are so ill-defined that it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation about them without specifying meanings and definitions beforehand.
When you say 'virus', what are you talking about exactly, Lloyd? 'Viruses made of RNA and DNA' is entirely nonsensical as a definition. 'Viruses' in the Johan Enders sense are protein-lipid encapsulated nanoparticles (some might say extracellular vesicles) made by DNA instructions and other cellular machinery in the cell nucleus. They are not 'made of' RNA or DNA in the slightest, but they might 'contain' RNA or DNA.
However, this definition is purely biocharacteristic, defining the particle by its properties. A fuller definition must also include the particle's functions, and this is where virology and mythology meet. There is scant proof that a 'virus', the particle biocharacterised and described since Enders 1953, is a contagious particle, is replication-competent, is invasive, and most important of all: causes disease in a living host.
There's no empirical evidence of those assertions in virology's own literature at all. All we have is a baseless assumption that whenever a virologist takes a sample from a sick person (spit, sputum, brochial lavage, urine, etc), "the virus" is floating around in there somewhere and it can be multiplied with Enders methodology. Except Stefan Lanka proved (2015-present) you can multiply 'virus' in a cell culture as per Ender's method without adding ANY 'virus' or sample to begin with. The particles were not replicated from a sick person's sample, because none was added to the cell culture; the 'virus' particles isolated by Lanka in his control experiments were produced by the cells themselves - extracellular vesicles produced during cytopathy.
For 'contagious virus' theory to be irrefutably correct, the following steps need to be empirically proven:
1. Isolate a nanoscale 'virus' particle from a patient sample, including complete biocharacterisation and RNA/DNA sequencing.
2. Introduce that particle to a cell culture and let it multiply, killing the host cells
3. Re-isolate the particle after all the cells are dead
4. Compare particle isolated in step 3 to particle isolated in step 1. If they are identical in biocharacterisation and RNA/DNA code, plausible causation can be established - that particle, and not something else, killed the cells and thus could be a cause of disease.
Steps 1-4 as described above have never been attempted or proven by any virologist ever. And until they are, I'm going to maintain my cautious but mostly critical view of the current 'science' of virology - it is dubious at best, based on one totally unproven assumption: the virus is always in the human sample no matter what. No! Prove it! Prove its there, and prove its the same at the start and the finish.
Thanks for your comments. What does JP stand for?
_Have you seen my post, called MY VAX QUESTIONS FOR EXPERT/S at https://ilki.substack.com/p/vax-questions-for-experts/comments ?
My questions are these.
1. Since vaxed people seem to get Covid more, not less, is there anything in the Covid vaxes that would cause that? Since other vaxes have been known to be contaminated with viruses, is it possible or probable that Covid vaxes are contaminated with Covid viruses?
2. When anyone gets Covid, which cells get infected first?
3. Covid contains RNA, not DNA. Is there more than one strand of RNA in each virus and how long is each strand?
4. An article is titled, "The COVID-19 virus may not insert genetic material into human DNA" (2021). It says the virus doesn’t have the necessary machinery to insert itself into human DNA. Do you have reason to think that's true or untrue? Why would the body allow foreign RNA into its DNA? And how would it do it?
5. What causes the virus to attach to a cell?
6. Do you know what Covid genome sequence causes its RNA to enter a cell?
7. And do you know how the virus replicates and disperses?
8. Considering Hillman's warnings below, do you have reason to think that mainstream microbiology is sound or unsound and, if so, what are your main reasons, stated briefly?
_I had previously posted IS MICROBIOLOGY SOUND? at https://ilki.substack.com/p/is-microbiology-real
_I share your skepticism about viruses etc, but I'm apparently less skeptical than you. You may well have more definitive info than I do, so my skepticism is prone to increase, if it seems warranted. The reason I'm not more skeptical so far is that it's plausible to me that viruses could be real, just as computer viruses are real. And viruses seem to explain cancers and numerous other diseases. Virus doubters don't seem to dispute the claim that DNA and RNA are real and that they program for the production of proteins. I don't know if they also produce lipids, glycoproteins etc. Do you? 3D printers use computers to manufacture objects, so the computer code controls production of such objects. It seems possible for anyone to make programs (computer code) that would produce objects that destroy computers in 3D printers, which would be a kind of physical virus.
_You said viruses "are not 'made of' RNA or DNA in the slightest, but they might 'contain' RNA or DNA." I understand that the RNA or DNA is what causes a virus to enter cells and get replicated and dispersed, because RNA/DNA is genetic code that controls replication. If virologists can show which sequence causes a virus to enter a cell and which sequence causes it to get replicated, I'll be more strongly inclined to accept virus theory.
_You said "There is scant proof that a 'virus', the particle biocharacterised and described since Enders 1953, is a contagious particle, is replication-competent, is invasive, and most important of all: causes disease in a living host. There's no empirical evidence of those assertions in virology's own literature at all."
_Have you asked any of the other Substack authors to discuss that? I'd be interested in discussing with you and them in a group.
_MejBCart provided answers to my questions above, but her answers probably aren't thorough enough so far.
Cheers Lloyd. I'm the same JP as over at Thunderbolts forum, mate.
Most of your questions above (numbered 1-8) have unsubstantiated assumptions undergirding them. Question one requires a defined clinical definition of what "COVID" is as a unique disease in humans; you've only assumed that it is a unique, novel illness never before seen prior to December 2019 (the symptoms are not novel or unique). Questions two through seven exhibit constant interchange between "COVID" as the disease, and "COVID" or "virus" as the alleged causative agent "SARS-COV-2".
Anyway, let me answer them to the best of my knowledge.
1. The question assumes positive COVID diagnosis in the vaccinated, which far exceeds the unvaccinated statistically, is of clinical or statistical importance. Both aspects are flawed. "COVID-19" as a clinical disease is defined as (WHO 2020): "A positive PCR test." And a positive PCR test (or nowadays, RAT) is defined as: "Clinical COVID-19 illness." It's a circular argument that cannot have statistical importance, and that isn't even starting to break open the non-specificity of "COVID-19" clinical symptoms (runny nose, loss of taste & smell, shortness of breath etc - I get these after a 10km run outside in winter), or the uselessness of both PCR and RAT testing regimes. The 'large numbers' of vaxxed getting "COVID" cannot be ruled out as mere blood poisoning after the (repeated) injection of a toxic substance into their body causing 'symptoms', and positive tests 'proving' it is COVID does not follow.
2. There is no evidence that "COVID" is a unique disease, so it remains unascertained what the causal agent is, or what effects occur on the human body or individual cells. Toxicological analysis post Wuhan 2019 have never been done to conclusively eliminate chemical causes for the clinical symptoms of the alleged novel disease.
3. While it is true that some extracellular, virus-like particles contain RNA, there are few, if at all any, instances of these strands undergoing whole-genome sequencing (e.g. Sanger) to determine their length and encoding details. What happens instead is a pot-pourri of genetic and chemical material - a human sample of e.g. saliva also containing natural bacterium and fungi; an animal cell culture, e.g. Vero 6 cells from a green monkey kidney; a bovine (calf) serum extracted from the heart of a living calf foetus in an abbotoir; various antibiotics and antifungal chemicals - all of this is mixed together and fragments of genetic goo extracted, placed into a computer program which "sorts" the fragments into a "coherent" whole sequence, which is chopped, changed and edited according to the researchers whims until it resembles a "coronavirus" genome template (usually approx 30,000 basepairs long). If you can't see the glaring flaw with this method I cannot help you further.
4. The concept of the SARS-COV-2 particle inserting genetic code into the human genome has never been proven, because the particles whole genome sequence, from top to tail, has never been acquired. How can you determine whether a piece of its code ended up in a human cell nucleus if you don't know what the actual code is? Further, it needs to be eliminated that fragments of such code do not already exist within the human genome, or within the genomes of organisms that live in the human body (e.g. bacterium), false positives as it were.
5. Assumes there is a unique virus responsible and it is capable of attaching to cells. Neither of these statements have been proven regarding SARS-COV-2; they are assumed from other research on 'virus' particles.
6. See answers to questions 3 and 4.
7. Virus particles have never been proven to have replication-competency, as I covered in my post above. No-one has ever demonstrated that the particle ASSUMED to exist in the patient sample is the same as the particle "isolated" at the end of Enders 1953 'viral isolation' process. Dispersal of 'virus' is alleged to occur after cell death (cytopathy), whereby it should be easily proven that a sick person's interstitial fluid at the site of 'infection' is saturated with billions of viral particles. This proof has never been attempted by any virologist ever.
8. I agree with Hillman's criticisms that electron microscopy in particular is wont to leave an abundance of artifacts in the sample simply as a result of preparation and scanning methods.
You stated further, above: "If virologists can show which sequence causes a virus to enter a cell and which sequence causes it to get replicated, I'll be more strongly inclined to accept virus theory."
For me, the essential proof is demonstrating:
1. 'Virus' particles are in a patient sample;
2. They have been whole genome sequenced and biocharacterised;
3. They can be added to a suitable host cell culture (e.g. growing a lung virus SARS-COV-2 in monkey kidney cells is invalid) and replicate to such an extent that they kill the host cell(s);
4. The resulting multiplied particles at step three are identical in biocharacterisation and at least 99% identical genetically (allowing for chance modifications/insertions/deletions/duplications of the original genome) as the particles biocharacterised and sequenced in steps 1-2.
That's the first essential stepping stone which will allow Rivers postulates (1937) to be attempted for disease causation by these selfsame particles. Without those essential proofs, we're simply left with non-sequiturs and circular reasoning.
Cheers,
JP.
Then JP stands for Josh something. Greetings.
I wrote those 8 questions to see if virus experts could answer them all. If they can answer them thoroughly, then I'd have more confidence in virus theory. I know the PCR tests are BS. I don't know much about other tests. I get the impression that viruses are real and contribute to disease, but I'll have to look up all the evidence to be able to make the argument. A lot of people are much more knowledgeable than I am and they are persuaded that viruses are real and potentially harmful, so I figure they may know. That's what I'm trying to determine: whether their knowledge is solid. I don't know if your explanation of the virus identification process is entirely accurate, so maybe you can tell me where you get your info on that.
_I'll try to see if AMidwesternDoctor or Steve Kirsch or others can provide answers.
_Looks like you started your Substack in early September. Did you know of Substack before that? I found out about it when one of Miles Mathis' writers posted something on Substack about Covid. I think it's a rather good place to write and get a following. I have a good following on Thunderbolts, but I don't get much interaction. Not much here either yet, but prospects seem better here. I have four different Substacks, so I have a lot of writing to do. Someone recommended my Substack on Catastrophism to his/her readers, so I got a bunch of subscriptions lately.
_Do you have any comments on a bunch of Substack posts linked at https://covidandvaxfaqs.substack.com/p/urgent-stop-vaxing-kids/comment/9953842 ?
_PS, I'm interested in some of the other topics you mentioned in your About section.
Len,
A few points that you might find interesting. Your assertion that viruses 'cause' cancer is... simply epidemiological or, if you prefer (sigh) correlation =!= causation. If you want to think about this: HIV allegedly 'causes' cervical cancer, but not pancreatic... Does that make sense? Do you really think the doctors can explain that other that by saying 'I went to Harvard!'
RNA/DNA are obliquely related to a 'virus's' ability to enter a cell. The Dna configuration codes for the shape of the surrounding layer that interacts with the cell via a lock-key mechanism. On that topic, since only R/Dna are involved, I suppose that there are no lipids etc in viruses.
As for viruses attaching to cells -- we have absolutely no proof of this. Electron microscopy destroys the samples involved, so we have no sense of the dynamics of the process.
I see that you're aware of Hillman... would that science were actually real, and people would be funded for following up that line of thought.
ShiYen
I don't know if I read this post last October, but I read it now. I commented on a recent Youtube video about people in China supposedly dying of rampant Covid that I think it's more likely from the Covid vaxes. Jon's suggestion is better: it's the vaxes plus a lot of other things. I also mentioned that I don't think there's a cheap test for Covid that's reliable and I still think that's correct. The point was that they can claim lots of Covid deaths if the tests give a lot of false positives and I read that it's easy to increase false positives just by increasing the number of cycles permitted.