Check Your Assumptions
Presuppositions are absolutely fascinating things to consider when diving into deep discussions. What are presuppositions? They are essentially elementary assumptions.1 All of us have presuppositions we bring to the table when engaging any subject. For example, if you walk around the corner of a building and see a man pointing a gun at you, then you are likely to be afraid because your presumption is that the man is going to kill you. However, if you are running from an armed man who is chasing you and you turn the corner around a building and see a police officer holding a gun, then you will likely be quite relieved because you believe he is going to help you. A man is pointing a gun at you in both instances, however, your assumptions about the man holding the gun will vary based on the presupposed foundation in your mind during the instance.
When engaging this whole conversation regarding Coronavirus, I want to challenge everyone to realize we have certain presuppositions when examining this topic. For example, If you hear someone say there were 3,000 deaths in the U.S.A. in a day from Coronavirus, what does that statement assume? First of all, it assumes the accuracy of the Coronavirus test. Secondly, this statement assumes that those counting the cases are doing so with accuracy. Thirdly, it assumes the medical professionals reporting the number of cases are also being accurate. Lastly, this assertion is presupposing the reliability of those who actually deliver the information. Now, just because the statement carries these assumptions does not necessarily negate the truth of the statement. There may be perfect validity and complete accuracy behind each one of these foundational presuppositions behind the statement there were 3,000 Coronavirus death in one day. However, these presuppositions need to be evaluated and confirmed if the overall statement is going to stand as accurate. Needless to say, this fact applies to all information we are given.
Evaluating The Presuppositions
The CDC says we have almost 300,000 COVID deaths in the U.S. currently.2 As I said, that statement presupposes many things, one of which is the reliability of the Coronavirus test. So, is the test reliable? Let’s examine the evidence and the testimony of individuals who have been tested. Tesla’s Elon Musk took the test 4-times using the same machine, the same facility, and all of the tests were given by the same nurse. He posted on social media to let his followers know two of the tests came back positive, and two were negative.3 Now, this is one notable example of a man who is a very public figure and underwent issues with the test. Another public individual is Alabama head football coach Nick Saban who also had a false positive in October.4 These false positives were found after multiple tests, which are not necessarily performed on every individual who is told they have had a positive test. What this demonstrates is that it is quite possible to have issues in determining whether or not someone has a positive case or not. Are there more data and examples which can help us in determining the accuracy of the test on a wider scale?
Cambridge University recently swabbed consenting students for Coronavirus on November 30th through December 6th. The results turned back 10 positives for those living in college accommodations. These positives were all asked to undertake a confirmation swabbing, and all of these were found to be false positives.5 For students living in private commendations, there was one positive found. This individual was eventually seen to have been given a false positive once the confirmation swab was given. Cambridge says that the data shows a false positive rate of .3% amongst their pooled screening tests to date. However, doesn’t it raise eyebrows that 100% of these 11 false positives were false during this period? It is another example of the Coronavirus test giving unreliable results.
The Coronavirus PCR test takes DNA through a cycle which will double the amount. For example, if you run a string of DNA through 40 cycles, you will end up with over a trillion copies. The CDC’s researchers say they have “extreme difficulty” in finding any live virus in samples above a cycle of 33, but the CDC is recommending an amplification cycle of 40 for this test (note all preceding information in this paragraph came from this article linked below).6 The PCR test was never intended to be able to detect or identify the virus only small and shatter fragments of the genome, which means if there are any infectious viri which have been dead for years, the Coronavirus test can come back positive.7 Yet again, these are demonstrable examples of the Coronavirus test failing to pass the grade in terms of accuracy. So, how does the presupposition of the accuracy of the test fair? In my estimation based on the data, it cannot be demonstrated the testing processes are reliable.
The Counting and Reporting of Cases
The next presupposition to ponder is the reliability of Coronavirus test counting. There is the example of Todd Friel of Wretched Radio, who tested positive 3 times, negative 1 time, during one illness, and was written down as 3 new coronavirus cases even though he is one man.8 In Florida, a man who died in a motorcycle accident, was listed as a Coronavirus death.9 Doctors argued that one might make the argument COVID caused him to crash, however, professionals are not supposed to list the cause of death based merely on arguments but upon evidence. A CDC report demonstrates that of all the Coronavirus deaths listed, only 6% of them had COVID as the only cause.10 That fact means that according to the CDC statistics, 94% of the Coronavirus deaths listed had some other cause of death other than only COVID as an impact. In other words, if I get Coronavirus and I have no other health issues, then I would be part of the 6%. However, if I have the flu and Coronavirus at the same time, then both could possibly contribute to my death, putting me in the 94%. However, this sort of distinction is not typically made in the reporting of the mainstream. Notably, peer-reviewed research has also found that only about .05% of those under 70 have been killed because of Coronavirus.11
So, what do we see in this presupposition? We see a lack of an ability to report the data with accuracy. The evidence shows that the data being reported surrounding the Coronavirus is not entirely accurate. This fact does not mean there is not some illness impacting people. What it does mean is that the data presented by the government and mainstream media is not accurate, according to the experts. Perhaps this is nowhere better demonstrated than in Grace Community Church of California who has around 7,000 individuals with no masks or social distancing meeting for months and has had all of 3 cases.11 This church’s example has shown Coronavirus is not being reported with accuracy for Grace Community Church would be the optimum place for an outbreak to occur if the virus was as widespread as we hear. However, the lack of issues this church has gone through just further confirms the fact that the reporting is not given with accuracy.
When The Presuppositions Fail
In this post, I have demonstrated the lack of reliability behind the narrative surrounding Coronavirus. We have seen how the test is not reliable, and the reporting has not been accurate. We have evaluated the presuppositions behind the statement that around 300,000 people have died from Coronavirus. The assumptions behind this statement do not stand the test when scrutinized by evidence. Now, I am not saying that no one has died from this illness. However, people have died from the flu, and we do not quarantine nor shut down the livelihood of people for that sickness. It is tragic for anyone to pass away because of any illness or other cause, but the presuppositions which support the narrative of masking up, distancing, and shutting everything down just do not hold water. Therefore, I am going to ask you, what are you going to do now that you have seen this evidence? Do you persist in living according to faulty assumptions, or do you go forward and seek to develop a position which will actually hold firm?
I want to urge you to live according to the truth. You have the responsibility to search for the truth on these matters. Are you going to keep eating at the table of lies or get up, walk out, and go to the table of truth? We must be discerning in what we believe and evaluate every assumption behind any statement. As C.S. Lewis once said, “It is critically important to examine the assumptions within a question.” You cannot take things at face value. You must dig and make sure what you are being told is true. It is our time to guard the truth friends. This is the pressing question, will we stand boldly or fall into the deception? Let us be vigilant to guard the truth and not buy into lies and falsehood.
1 Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, ed. Robert R. Booth (Nacogdoches: Covenant Media Foundation, 2011), p. 12.