The infectious myth
The Infectious Myth
A Book Project by David Crowe
The Infectious Myth
Home Updates Email Timelines
Most people believe that every disease on the following list has an infectious cause:
HIV/AIDS
(audio) Harry Haverkos on Kaposis Sarcoma, Poppers and AIDS
Coronaviruses
David Crowe Writings
Critique of COVID-19 ‘science’ (also in Czech, French, German, Spanish, Korean).
Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory1
David Crowe
[email protected]
Version 8.5. June 6, 2020
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory1
David Crowe
[email protected]
Version 8.5. June 6, 2020
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf
- Executive Summary
The world is suffering from a massive delusion based on the belief that a test for
RNA2 is a test for a deadly new virus, a virus that has emerged from wild bats or
other animals in China, supported by the western assumption that Chinese people
will eat anything that moves.
If the virus exists, then it should be possible to purify viral particles. From these
particles RNA can be extracted and should match the RNA used in this test. Until this
is done it is possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the
cells of the patient, bacteria, fungi etc. There might be an association with elevated
levels of this RNA and illness, but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus.
Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted
that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present.
Definitions of important diseases are surprisingly loose, perhaps embarrassingly so.
A couple of symptoms, maybe contact with a previous patient, and a test of
unknown accuracy, is all you often need. While the definition of SARS, an earlier
coronavirus panic, was self-limiting, the definition of COVID-19 disease is openended,
allowing the imaginary epidemic to grow. Putting aside the existence of the
virus, if the COVID-19 test has a problem with false positives (as all biological tests
do) then testing an uninfected population will produce only false-positive tests, and
the definition of the disease will allow the epidemic to go on forever.
This strange new disease, officially named COVID-19, has none of its own symptoms.
Fever and cough, previously blamed on uncountable viruses and bacteria, as well as
environmental contaminants, are most common, as well as abnormal lung images,
despite those being found in healthy people. Yet, despite the fact that only a
minority of people tested will test positive (often less than 5%), it is assumed that
this disease is easily recognized. If that were truly the case, the majority of people
selected for testing by doctors should be positive.
The COVID-19 test is based on PCR, a DNA manufacturing technique. When used as a
test it does not produce a positive/negative result, but simply the number of cycles
1 Officially the virus is called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease it is believed to caused, COVID-19. We will
just refer to COVID-19 for the current virus panic, and SARS for the 2003 panic.
2 Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) is chemically very similar to DNA, except that one of the four bases,
Thymine, is replaced by Uracil. In function it is very different, being created from DNA for a
temporary use such as creating a protein molecule. It is also found in a single strand rather than a
double-helix.
2
required to detect sufficient material to beat the arbitrary cutoff between positive
and negative. If positive means infected and negative means uninfected, then there
are cases of people going from infected to uninfected and back to infected again in a
couple of days.
A lot of people say it is better to be safe than sorry. Better that some people are
quarantined who are uninfected than risk a pandemic. But once people test positive,
they are likely to be treated, with treatments similar to SARS. Doctors faced with
what they believe is a deadly virus treat for the future, for anticipated symptoms,
not for what they see today. This leads to the use of invasive oxygenation, high dose
corticosteroids, antiviral drugs and more. In this case, some populations of those
diagnosed (e.g. in China) are older and sicker than the general population and much
less able to withstand aggressive treatment. After the SARS panic had subsided
doctors reviewed the evidence, and it showed that these treatments were often
ineffective, and all had serious side effects, such as persistent neurologic deficit,
joint replacements, scarring, pain and liver disease. As well as higher mortality.
3 - Introduction
The COVID-19 scare that emanated from Wuhan, China in December of 2019 is an
epidemic of testing, as the graph below with test statistics from Austria shows.
There is no proof that a virus is being detected by the test and, while there should
be, there is absolutely no concern about whether there are a significant number of
false positives on the test. What is being published in medical journals is not science,
every paper has the goal of enhancing the panic by interpreting the data only in
ways that benefit the viral theory, even when the data is confusing or contradictory.
In other words, the medical papers are propaganda.
It is also an epidemic by definition. The definition, which assumes perfection from
the test, does not have the safety valve that the definition of SARS did, thus the scare
can go on until public health officials change the definition or realize that the test is
not reliable. SARS, according to CDC, required a respiratory symptom; close contact
with another SARS case or travel to a designated epidemic area; and a positive SARS
test (or lack of antibodies believed to be protective) [48]. Once everyone had been
quarantined, the second criterion was difficult to achieve outside of a hospital, and
numbers plummeted.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2/26 2/28 3/1 3/3 3/5 3/7 3/9 3/11 3/13 3/15 3/17 3/19 3/21 3/23 3/25 3/27 3/29 3/31
Number of Tests Performed and Positive Results, Austria
Tests Positive
4
What I learned from studying SARS, the previous big coronavirus scare, after the
2003 epidemic, was that nobody had proved a coronavirus existed, let alone was
pathogenic. There was evidence against transmission, and afterwards, negative
assessments of the extreme treatments that patients were subjected to, the
nucleoside analog antiviral drug Ribavirin, high dose corticosteroids, invasive
respiratory assistance, and sometimes oseltamivir (Tamiflu). This is documented in
my draft book chapter (mostly complete) that you can find here:
http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/SARS.pdf
5 - Virus Existence
Scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with influenza or
pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is
believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are
believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups
of scientists was honest enough to admit this:
“we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood” [2]
But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41
cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, “41 patients…
confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV.”
Another paper quietly admitted that:
“our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates” [1]
Koch’s postulates, first stated by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the
late 1800s, are simple logic, and can be stated as:
• Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness.
• Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen.
• Verify that the same illness is produced.
• Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it
really is creating the illness.
Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, “It is obvious that Koch's
postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases”. That was a long time ago, but
the problem continues. And Rivers’ guidance was considered important enough to
be cited by papers claiming (falsely) that Koch’s Postulates had been met during the
SARS era (2003). None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted
to purify the virus. And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it
means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is
‘isolation’).
Reference [1] did publish electron micrographs, but it can clearly be seen in the
lesser magnified photo, that the particles believed to be COVID-19 are not purified,
as the quantity of material that is cellular is much greater. The paper notes that the
photos are from “human airway epithelial cells”. Also consider that the photo
included in the article will certainly be the “best” photo, i.e. the one with the greatest
number of particles. Lab technicians may be encouraged to spend hours to look
around to find the most photogenic image, the one that most looks like pure virus.
There is no way to tell that the RNA being used in the COVID-19 PCR test is found in
those particles seen in the electron micrograph, because you cannot see what the
contents are, they could be protein, RNA or DNA. There is thus no connection
between the test, and the particles, and no proof that the particles are viral.
A similar situation was revealed in March 1997 concerning HIV, when two papers
published in the same issue of the journal “Virology” revealed that the vast majority
of what had previously been called “pure HIV” was impurities that were clearly not
6
HIV, and the mixture also included micro-vesicles that look very similar to HIV
under an electron microscope, but are of cellular origin. [5][6]
7 - Disease Definition
Infectious diseases always have a definition, but they are usually not publicized too
widely because then they would be open to ridicule. They usually have a “suspect
case” category based on symptoms and exposure, and a “confirmed” category that
adds some kind of testing.
Reference [13] describes a suspect case definition for COVID-19, derived from WHO
definitions for SARS and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). This definition
was in effect until January 18, 2020, and required all four of the following criteria:
• “Fever, with or without recorded temperature”. Note that there is
no universal definition of fever, so this may just be the opinion of a
physician or nurse. With SARS a fever was defined as 38C even though
normal body temperature is considered to be 37C (98.6F).
• “Radiographic evidence of pneumonia”. This can occur without
illness, as was seen in a 10 year old boy with no clinical symptoms [3].
He was diagnosed with pneumonia despite this.
• “Low or normal white-cell count or low lymphocyte count”. This is
not really a criterion as every healthy person is included. This is also
strange because people suffering from an infection normally have
elevated white blood cell counts (although they may drop in people
dying from an infection).
• One of the following three:
o “No reduction in symptoms after antimicrobial treatment
for 3 days”. This is a standard indication of a ‘viral’
pneumonia, i.e. one that does not resolve with antibiotics.
o “Epidemiologic link to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale
Market”. This, and the next criterion, create the illusion of an
infectious disease, as it prefers the diagnosis of connected
cases.
o “Contact with other patients with similar symptoms”.
On January 18th the last, three-part category was changed to:
• One of the following:
o “travel history to Wuhan”
o “direct contact with patients from Wuhan who had fever or
respiratory symptoms, within 14 days before illness onset”
The big problem is that, in contrast to the definition for SARS, a “confirmed case” of
COVID-19 did not originally require the criteria for a suspect case to be met, but
simply a positive RNA test. It did not require any symptoms or evidence of contact
with previous cases, illustrating total faith in the PCR technology used in the test.
The World Health Organization definition has the same flaw [15].
It was the fact that the SARS definition required both a reasonable possibility of
contact with a previous case, and symptoms, that allowed the epidemic to burn out.
8
Once everyone was quarantined, contact with an existing case was highly unlikely,
testing stopped, and doctors could declare victory.
The Chinese eventually woke up and, around February 16th required confirmed
cases to meet the requirements for a suspected case, as well as a positive test. They
may have put this new definition into practice earlier because after a massive
addition of almost 16,000 confirmed cases on February 12th, the number fell
dramatically each day and, by February 18th was under 500 cases, and continued to
stay low.
But other countries did not learn. Korea, Japan and Italy (and perhaps other
countries) have started doing tests on people with no epidemiological link,
encouraging people with the vague symptoms that are part of the definition to come
to hospital to get checked, and obviously following up with anybody with a
connection to them, most of whom will be asymptomatic. Consequently, in mid to
late February, cases in those and other countries started to skyrocket.
A New Disease?
COVID-19 is described as a distinct new disease. But it clearly is not. There are no
distinctive symptoms, for a start. Reference [2] showed that, among 41 early cases,
the only symptoms found in more than half, were fever (98%) and cough (76%).
98% had CT Scan imaging showing problems in both lungs (although it is possible to
have shadowing on a CT scan without symptoms). The high percentage of cases with
fever and shadowing in both lungs is an artefact of the disease definition, fever and
“radiographic evidence of pneumonia” are two of the diagnostic criteria for a
probable case.
The low rate of people testing positive on the COVID-19 test is further evidence that
there are no obvious symptoms. If there were recognizable symptoms, doctors
should have a better than 3-5% chance of guessing who has the virus. While some of
the people may have been tested, without symptoms, because they were on a flight
or cruise, countries outside China are encouraging people with the non-specific
symptoms of fever and cough to get tested, so increasingly people have symptoms of
the flu or pneumonia, but are still testing negative in high numbers.
For example, as of March 9th, Korea had found 7,382 positive cases out of 179,160
people tested (4.1%) [20]. In Washington State, where they appear to be reluctant
to test anyone, only 1 out of 27 tested by February 24th had tested positive (3.7%)
[21]. Perhaps if they had tested all 438 who were then under quarantine, the
epidemic would have exploded from 1 to about 16 cases (3.7% of 438). By March
9th, 1,246 tests had been performed in Washington with 136 found positive (11%).
Obviously, in neither location can doctors recognize cases clinically.
9 - Testing
Assuming, for a moment, the existence of a new coronavirus, what would a test tell
us, at this stage? Or rather, what does it not tell us?
• Without purification and exposing animals to viral particles we do not know
if the virus is pathogenic (disease causing). It could be an opportunistic
infection (invades unhealthy people with weakened immune systems) or a
passenger virus (that is carried along by risky behavior, such as eating an
animal carrier of a virus).
• We don’t know the false positive rate of the test without validating a large
number of positive tests by attempting to purify virus. Every positive test for
which virus could not be purified would be a false positive, and every
negative test for which virus could be purified would be a false negative. But
the virus has not yet been purified, so test validation is impossible.
• If someone is sick there is no proof that any or all of their symptoms are due
to the virus, even if it is present. Some people may be immune, some may
have some symptoms caused by the virus, but others caused by the drugs
they are given, by pre-existing health conditions, and so on.
• We don’t know if the people who test negative are infected or not, especially
when they show up with similar symptoms. For example, in [2], out of 59
patients with similar symptoms, only 41 tested positive, but the researchers
were clearly not sure whether the remaining 18 were truly uninfected. If they
truly are not, they lend weight to COVID-19 not being the cause of any of the
illnesses, as they had symptoms indistinguishable from the 41 positives.
Testing at such an early stage of knowledge is incredibly dangerous. It spreads
panic, it can put people on dangerous medications, other circumstances of their
treatment can be physically and psychologically damaging (such as intubation and
isolation, and even seeing all the doctors and nurses in special suits emphasizing
how deathly sick you are).