We got a pandemic of testing, propaganda and mRNA poisons
Neil Oliver’s claim that “there was no pandemic” and his assertion that what unfolded was instead a “pandemic of testing” and a “pandemic of propaganda” merit careful consideration, particularly when viewed through the lens of available data and scientific commentary surrounding the COVID-19 crisis. While Oliver’s argument may initially appear extreme to some, a closer examination of the situation reveals several key points that align with his stance, particularly when it comes to the use of PCR tests, the spread of misinformation, and the broader implications of how the public health response was framed and executed.
Firstly, Oliver’s statement about the PCR test is not without merit. The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test, developed by Kary Mullis in the 1980s, was never intended to be a diagnostic tool for infectious diseases. Mullis himself, before his death, famously noted that PCR was a process used to amplify genetic material for research purposes, not for detecting active infections in a patient. Despite this, PCR testing became the backbone of the global response to COVID-19, used as the primary method for diagnosing the virus in millions of people. Critics, including some within the scientific community, raised concerns about the over-reliance on PCR tests, particularly due to their sensitivity. A positive result could indicate the presence of viral genetic material, but not necessarily an active infection or contagious state. This created ambiguity, especially as tests were often performed on people who had no symptoms or had already recovered, thus inflating the perceived spread of the virus.
The issue was compounded by the varying accuracy of PCR tests, with the World Health Organization (WHO) and other public health agencies acknowledging that no test is perfect. The problem of false positives or positives from residual viral material further muddied the waters, leaving many questioning whether the global response was truly reflective of a health emergency or if it was a panic driven by questionable testing practices. Oliver’s claim that the pandemic was, in part, a pandemic of testing rings true when considering the widespread use and over-interpretation of PCR results.
Beyond the issues with testing, Oliver’s accusation of a “pandemic of propaganda” and “lies” also warrants attention. Throughout the course of the pandemic, the world saw a massive influx of information, much of it contradictory, leading to confusion and distrust. Governments and health organizations often revised their stances on key issues, such as mask-wearing, lockdowns, and the efficacy of vaccines, which left the public unsure about what to believe. The media, in many cases, followed suit, amplifying narratives that aligned with government policies while dismissing or censoring dissenting views. The suppression of alternative perspectives, ranging from questioning the severity of the virus to discussing the risks and benefits of lockdowns, furthered the sense of a “propaganda” campaign.
Moreover, public health experts who challenged the prevailing narrative, such as those questioning the use of mass lockdowns or advocating for more nuanced approaches, were often dismissed or sidelined by mainstream institutions. This not only stifled scientific debate but also contributed to the spread of misinformation, as many were led to believe there was only one “correct” viewpoint. In this environment, dissent became equated with misinformation, and the public was often presented with a distorted view of the situation.
Oliver’s argument also taps into broader concerns about the politicization of the pandemic. The public health crisis became entangled with political agendas, with some governments using the pandemic as an opportunity to enact policies that extended beyond public health, such as economic shutdowns, surveillance measures, and social control mechanisms. The pandemic, in many ways, became a tool for advancing ideologies, rather than a purely scientific or health-driven endeavor. The result was that millions of people were subjected to extreme measures, such as lockdowns and restrictions, without clear or consistent evidence of their effectiveness in controlling the virus’s spread. These policies, framed as necessary to “save lives,” were implemented with little transparency, and in many cases, their negative social, economic, and psychological impacts were ignored or downplayed.
(“There Is No SARS-CoV-2, There Is No COVID-19, and There Are No Variants”)
It is also worth considering the broader implications of the pandemic response. In many ways, the COVID-19 crisis became a moment for societal experimentation, with global leaders testing new ways of exercising control over populations. Surveillance systems were rolled out at an unprecedented scale, with technologies such as contact tracing apps and health passports being pushed forward under the guise of health and safety. In some regions, measures that would have previously been considered draconian were normalized, leading to fears that the pandemic response was not merely about managing a health crisis but about reshaping societal structures in ways that would benefit political elites and corporate interests.
In conclusion, Neil Oliver’s critique that “there was no pandemic” can be seen as a challenge to the dominant narrative of the COVID-19 crisis, urging people to reconsider the underlying factors that shaped the response to the virus. The excessive reliance on PCR testing, combined with the spread of misinformation and the use of the pandemic for political purposes, raises legitimate concerns about whether the global response was truly proportional to the threat posed by the virus. While the existence of the virus itself is undeniable, Oliver’s argument highlights how the real pandemic might have been one of fear, confusion, and manipulation, rather than the disease itself.
All my analyses are free to read, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you value this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please click this link.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Leave a comment