In Part1 of Covid Conspiracy?, we looked at the alleged origins of COVID-19 and a few of the conspiracies that have manifested around it since the outbreak began. Here, we are going to look at what the response has been since then, with a particular emphasis on the PCR test, and the government and mainstream media narratives.

Let’s start off with a bit of that which goes right over my head – the science. I’m no scientist and like most who may read this, I have to be guided by those who are more qualified than I. But, as I said already near the beginning of Part1, “opinions within scientific circles always differ and any single scientific narrative on its own, shouldn’t be relied upon when seeking truth.

The PCR Test

COVID-19 testEverything that has been done, relies upon the accuracy of the testing mechanisms we have in place. The case numbers rely on its accuracy, otherwise, we could be dealing with something different to what we think we are. The death numbers rely on its accuracy, or those saying goodbye to their loved ones for the last time won’t know what really happened.

In this case, everything relies upon the accuracy of the PCR test currently being used to diagnose COVID19, as it forms the very basis for the existence of the COVID19 pandemic worldwide. Case and death numbers have been quoted daily around the world, and lockdown measures implemented, all justified by the results of PCR testing.

There are two points of view: it works v it doesn’t work. Those within the mainstream scientific establishment mainly seem to support this test, but not everyone agrees.

This Labtag article by Alexander Goldberg, PhD is about the history of PCR. In it, Dr Goldberg says: “PCR is now one of the most widely used biochemical techniques. It’s employed by clinicians to screen for viral and bacterial infections, to detect cancer, and to diagnose genetic diseases. Biomedical research also depends on PCR to accurately quantify both RNA and DNA in samples, to design expression vectors and clone genes, and to genotype mice and other animals. The technique has come a long way since the 1980s (or the 1970s), with new enzymes and reagents available that make it more efficient and precise, becoming a technological staple in hospitals, research institutes, schools (no high school biology class is complete without learning about PCR), and forensic labs.”

On the other hand, this blog post by Dr Malcolm Kendrick is about the number of likely false-positive COVID19 tests and provides a good explanation of his views. On false positives, he says: “if we have a high rate of false positives, then the rise in ‘cases’ could be driven by a rise in testing – and nothing else. And you don’t need a high percentage of false-positive tests to do this. If the false-positive rate is as little as just one per cent (1%) this means the majority of people told they are positive for COVID19, do not have COVID19!”

Another comment taken from this article reads: “According to Jason Hommel, a prolific writer and researcher and also the author of the very important article regarding coronavirus testing entitled “Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results”:

“PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known not to work. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously, any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.””

But Mr Hommel, which scientists say this? So, I dug out the original article. The article quotes “15 sources giving commentary on the reliability of the COVID19 test kits in use.” The first link is to the Creative Diagnostics webpage for the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kitin other words, the COVID19 test kit we are all relying on.

The page states:
“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.
1. The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.
2. The detection result can be affected by operations, including specimen collection, storage and transportation. False-negative result may occur if there is any mistakes in the operation. Cross-contamination during specimen treatment may lead to false-positive result.
3. The detected target sequences of this products are the conservative region of 2019-nCoV’s ORF1ab gene and N gene. However, target sequence variations may lead to false-negative result.”

There are a variety of links, including some to the FDA and CDC with further information should you wish to research further. Suffice to say, they all somewhat acknowledge the limitations of the PCR test when seeking to accurately diagnose SARS-COV-2.

From the above, it looks as if the weight of evidence suggests the PCR test can’t, at least on its own, provide the accuracy we need, despite that those within the mainstream establishment (including the scientists) are all saying it’s accurate and reliable. If you watch any news channel, read any newspaper or visit any health provider, you will be subjected to their perpetual covid narrative which supports the testing and the declared results.

If the test really is not fit for purpose according to its own regulatory status and above stated limitations, why would our entire establishment support it? After all, for all its faults, we’ve always been able to rely on the British establishment for things like that, haven’t we? Isn’t it just daft to think that all those people could lie? What about all the doctors and nurses; wouldn’t they all say if there was something wrong with all this?

Conforming within Organisations

Those are all incredibly good questions. So, let’s have a look at some more advice from John Braithwaite in his book: ‘Corporate Crime in the pharmaceutical industry’. In it, Braithwaite considers, what are the factors that lead ordinary people to do extraordinary things? This can be considered in the context of any organisation, including governments, media corporations and healthcare providers.

“People in groups behave in ways that would be inconceivable for any of them as individuals.

  • Rule by nobody. A bureaucratic practice for relieving self-condemnation for aggression.
  • Group decision making means no single person feels responsible for what is done.
  • A mechanism for obscuring responsibility for decisions that affect others negatively.
  • Via division of labour, division of decision making and by collective action, people can be contributors to cruel practices and bloodshed without feeling personally responsible or self-contemptuous for their part in it.
  • Group risky shift phenomenon. The tendency for cautious individuals to support more risky or hazardous group decisions.
  • The distance in space and time between the hazardous decision-maker and the victim of the decision.”


If you are fully integrated within an organisation, you make yourself subject to that organisational culture, rules and practices. You play head games with yourself so that you don’t have to feel bad when you conform to something within that organisation, that you would never contemplate outside it. If you are in a senior management position, you are distant not only from the ultimate victims of your decisions but also those who you expect to implement them.

The structure of organisations makes it possible for truly horrible decisions to be made, which are then followed all the way to the ordinary people they affect, who may never know the origin or purpose of their suffering.

How we got here

So, now we can see how it is possible for good people to support bad decisions when they’re conforming within an organisational structure. But it still doesn’t explain how we got where we are now with the covid crisis. For that, we need to look at the role of government and the mainstream media. Essentially, the government’s role is to set policy and the media role is to inform policy.

What, that’s it? Well, not quite. We need to look at what the government really wants to achieve, rather than what we are told they want to achieve. So, we need to look behind the decision-making, instead of in front of it. This is why Part1 of this post concentrated on the origin of the virus, so if you haven’t read it yet, now is a good time. You can always return here afterwards.

In front of the decision making involves cuddle bunnies, rainbows, and unicorns. They are looking after all our health and trying to do their best for humanity, all justified by constant death toll updates and other daily updates by government ministers. I am sorry if I seem a tad cynical. Now, what about behind?

For that, we need to look at what the government has done with the figures generated by the PCR tests and other information they rely on from science. The main question in my mind when I consider this is; Is the government being guided by science as they claim, or are they interpreting science according to a particular agenda?

It’s important to remember here that all science is essentially theory and scientific perspectives always differ among scientists. The doubts raised now by many in the scientific and healthcare community about the PCR test in particular casts doubt on the government’s assertion that they are guided by science, rather than them guiding a narrative with subjective scientific interpretations.

Is it possible that they may even be, at worst, deliberately fiddling the numbers and if so, why?

How deaths are classified

The serious doubts about the PCR test make the above question an obvious one to me, so let’s have a look at how COVID19 deaths are classified. Of course, all stats provided by the government assume the test’s accuracy.

Case numbers since the beginning have included those who die ‘with’ the virus in addition to those who die ‘of’ the virus. So, a COVID19 death is someone who tested positive for COVID19, which is not the same as actually dying from it. Some Spanish regions, such as Catalonia and Madrid, have been counting victims who have shown symptoms but did not test positive. The UK reports deaths as ‘of those who tested positive for coronavirus’ which means anyone who dies for any reason after testing positive is counted. The Office of National Statistics (ONS) for England and Wales data includes deaths where COVID19 has been mentioned on the birth certificate.

Currently, the UK stats include ‘Deaths for any reason within 28 days of positive test’. So if you test positive, you will be counted regardless of how you die.

As of 16th July, for example, the UK government put the number of deaths in England at 29,146. This figure is strongly disputed. When you remove deaths for reasons other than COVID19, according to the government’s own figures, the number is 1,379, the average age of those being in their 80s. In the interests of fairness though, here’s a link to a fact check giving a different perspective on how deaths are counted. Also, here’s a link to a Channel4 fact check titled Can we trust the Covid-19 death toll?

All this, however, is without considering that the PCR test being used could have a false positive rate sufficient to undermine the value of all these figures. It is possible in fact, as previously mentioned above, that most people who test positive do not have COVID19.

Further, while the manufacturer’s information on the PCR test specifically states that “the detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment”, according to UK rules when referring deaths to the coroner, diagnostic proof (of COVID19) is not required. (source: ONS – Guidance for doctors re; death certificates England & Wales)

So, they can basically put what they like on the death certificate and that is how it will be counted. It’s up to you to decide whether or how much you can trust the integrity of these decisions, given a seriously flawed reporting mechanism reporting on the results of a test not designed for that purpose (as attested by its developer).

Once the initial lockdown eased, along with the number of reported deaths, the emphasis was instead placed more on the number of cases. It’s important to note here that according to the .gov website, number of cases means number of positive swabs. Previously, a positive swab did not equal a case. To be counted as a case, the patient would have to exhibit symptoms and require treatment. “The only meaningful statistics show the incidence of serious illness, hospitalizations, and deaths.

According to the above-quoted article entitled “The Absurdity of Covid “Cases”, “—A virus is not a disease. Only a very small percentage of those exposed to the virus itself—SARS-CoV-2—show any kind of acute respiratory symptoms, or what we can call “coronavirus disease.

Why the lockdown?

So, why the lockdown if all the evidence suggests it unnecessary? Especially since, on 19th March 2020, the UK Gov decided that Covid19 was no longer a high consequence infectious disease and that it had a low overall mortality rate. Why then, on 23rd March 2020, did the UK Gov begin imposing lockdown restrictions? The conspiracy would suggest you follow the money, which would lead you in good measure, straight to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. See Part1 of this post again for more on that.

Neil Ferguson

Neil Ferguson

In addition to their heavy investment in the WHO, the Gates Foundation have also funded several interests in the UK, including Imperial College, who’s modelling dire predictions of death by one Neil Ferguson, a professor at Imperial College, provided the justification for the original lockdown. This despite the fact of Ferguson’s record of ‘mathematical sensationalism’ over several previous disease modelling scenarios since “the modelling of the British Government’s response to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) in 2001, which Thrusfield describes as “not fit for purpose” (2006) and “seriously flawed” (2012).”

There’s more also on GAVI the Vaccine Alliance and their funding of the Imperial College in the above-linked post.

Ferguson’s record of vastly exaggerating his predictions make it all the more fantastic that the UK government and the WHO would base their response on his modelling. What might also be telling is Ferguson’s own lack of commitment to the measures he recommended, after he “accepted making an “error of judgment” by breaching social distancing rules.”

Global vaccination market revenue worldwide is projected to reach $59.2 billion by 2020; this number may well increase with the arrival of Covid–19. The British Government’s investment in GAVI alongside vaccine promoter Bill Gates must, again, raise the issue of conflicts of interest. To what extent is the British Government protecting its own assets in forcing the lockdown upon its population? Vaccines are set to be a major source of income for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations, and the British Government is invested in that lucrative future.

From 2012 to March 2018, Sir Patrick Vallance was president of research and development at GSK. He went directly from GSK to his post as the UK Government chief scientific adviser.” (GSK = GlaxoSmithKline. The government’s chief scientific advisor was formerly employed by the pharmaceutical giant)

Gates likes vaccinesThe fact that the UK government has invested in GAVI doesn’t prove that there is a conspiracy, but it doesn’t look good and it isn’t unreasonable to ask questions, especially also given the history of the UK government’s chief scientific advisor. It looks like the UK government is fully invested with the pharmaceutical industry, GAVI and the Gates Foundation and that vaccines are at the epicentre of everything that has happened since the very beginning. That is if you follow the money.

Media Influence

But, if all that were true, wouldn’t the media be taking them all to task on it? After all, you can always believe everything the media tell you when it’s something like that. Or can you?

It depends. The truth is you can probably rely on most of what you see in mainstream media being true. You just can’t always rely on it being in the proper context. What I mean is, everyone, every person, organisation, political party and government have a narrative. That ‘filter mechanism’ through which we see the world. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t need elections and life would be very boring.

However and in addition to this, media organisations are subject to other influences. Currently, just “three companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group and Reach) dominate 83% of the national newspaper market.” The BBC is supposed to be impartial but is under “political pressure to be mindful of its impact on the wider commercial market.” The BBC is also known to have its own ‘political slant’, reducing its ability to claim impartiality.

The concentrated ownership of media companies (including social media) results in a small number of wealthy individuals able to wield considerable political and economic power within their spheres of influence. My article entitled Rupert Murdoch & Media Influence in Politics gives a good account of News Corp as an example of media influence in politics.

The trouble is, the mainstream media have a massive amount of influence on public opinion and can shape the opinions and narratives of nations, and therefore governments who want to be voted back in. Also, in this interview on the This Morning programme, the presenter specifically stated that “in this time of national emergency, you are not allowed to question the narrative on such things. There are restrictions on publications; there are restrictions on broadcasters”. (Go to timestamp 08:20 to see for yourself) So, the mainstream media, during times of national emergency, must by law, propagate whatever the ‘official narrative’ is and not disagree or question it.

The D Notice

The most institutionalised method of self-censorship is the D Notice system (short for Defence Notices). They are a unique peacetime arrangement of voluntary suppression of certain categories of information on the advice — not orders — of the Government.” Also, “The broadcasting laws allow the Home Secretary complete control over all broadcasting content.”

So, the government can advise the media and broadcasting organisations to withhold, or amend a story that would otherwise reveal, information that the government feels is sensitive. Over time, if the media have learned to predict possible D Notices and amend their reporting accordingly, does this mean that the British mainstream media is now effectively fully integrated into the political establishment?

The Integrity Initiative

The Integrity Initiative’s stated aim is to defend democracy against disinformation, in particular, that alleged to be coming from Russia. “The Integrity initiative is part of a UK Government counter-disinformation and media development Programme.” Suffice to say, this is a programme within the UK ‘intelligence services’ designed to propagate information to the public via mainstream media journalistic channels.

My question is, does the media want to question the government’s narrative, or are they the ones responsible for guiding it? Is this a government narrative propagated by the media, or a media narrative followed by the government?

This will fry your brain if you overthink it. The answer to the above question is both, depending on the situation. The amount of political and economic power wielded by mainstream media is real, and so is the government’s ability to manipulate what is reported. So, the media reporting we receive amounts to a combination of media narrative as influenced by the few wealthy people who own it, and government narrative as influenced by what is considered ‘sensitive information’. Everything else, whatever of it there may be, that you see in the mainstream media is probably true.

How conspiracy theory works

JFK media reportsI’ll provide a quick background to the term: ‘Conspiracy Theory’. The term was popular from the 17th century to the 1950s, then co-opted by the CIA as a means to discredit those who question official narratives regarding the 1964 Warren Commission report into the assassination of JFK. The CIA coined the term in 1967 to disqualify those who question the official version, doubting that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The effect is to silence victims of conspiracy or their advocates and manages public consensus to suit the interests of the powerful. It has been used in that way ever since, including the deliberate manufacture of conspiracy theories that are obviously false, to discredit them all. Think Flat Earth Theory.

Look at it like this. Let’s say you have two channels to communicate information. If you use one channel, such as mainstream media, most people will believe the information. If you use the other channel, such as declaring it a ‘conspiracy theory’, most people will disbelieve the information.

The point is not whether the information is true, only whether you want it to be believed. That is how conspiracy theory works. This also explains social media censorship, where news contrary to the official narrative is labelled as fake news. Go here to see 25 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

COVID19 conspiracy?

There’s an old saying. Half of what they tell you, you can’t believe. The other half is lies. But who are they? The government? The mainstream media? Pharmaceutical corporations? Gates Foundation? Deep State? All the above? Or is it the conspiracy theorists that have it all wrong?

Unfortunately, this is one of those times when the weight of evidence, as offered here, suggests that information is being deliberately manipulated by the establishment towards an obvious agenda – that of mass vaccination and a substantial increase in state power.

That does not mean that everything said to support the existence of a conspiracy is true. There is a massive amount of information circulating, some of it true, some of it false, and some of it misleading. But there is clearly also a context managed narrative propagated by the establishment, which has been deliberately manipulating the data since the very beginning and using their findings to justify lockdowns and restrictions here and around the world.

In the meantime, thousands of people are dying due to missed medical care, and a third of calls to suicide helplines are related to coronavirus, according to the Samaritans. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that many more people are dying because of the lockdowns and restrictions than are dying from COVID19.

A final thought

If you’ve read through both parts of this post, you will now have a good idea as to why so many people just don’t believe the official covid narrative. They are not all crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theorists. They have looked at the information available to them through their own research and decided that it just doesn’t all add up. The official narrative just doesn’t make sense in light of all the information that conflicts with it.

Don’t take my word for it though. I ask of you nothing else, other than maintaining an open mind, discerning everything you see and hear, and that you look beyond the confines of mainstream media when seeking answers. Then, make up your own mind.

Intuitive & Tarot Sessions

“John is extremely kind and helpful person his card readings are very accurate and done in a very caring empathetic way. I highly recommend John!” – Derek

“Really detailed reading with lots of layers of information, and sent to me promptly. John has a thoughtful sensitive style that was very easy to listen to, and the messages and advice were spot on.” – Helen

Find out more:



Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Get in touch

For questions, general feedback, or to make a pre-booking enquiry, please use this form.


Get my BEST updates delivered to your inbox. Join my email list and get my favorite content regularly. Unsubscribe anytime.