top of page

My Skeptical Thoughts

on the Covid Question

by John Spritzler

May 10, 2024


When an evil person is caught doing something evil, there is a way to make people think they are innocent. It works like this. The evil person arranges for phony evidence against himself to be found for a MUCH greater evil deed than the one he actually committed. He lets this evidence be published in the newspapers. Everybody is so shocked at the enormity of the much greater evil deed that they forget the lesser evil deed. Then the evil person shows that the evidence against him is PHONY. Everybody then concludes that ALL accusations against the evil person are false, including the one that was true. 


This was a plot device used by Agatha Christie in a Hercules Poirot story and by John LeCarre in The Spy Who Came In from the Cold. 

The ruling class likewise benefits when people accuse it of a MUCH greater evil (assertion #1 below) than the evil acts it actually does commit (assertion #2 below) and the accusation of the MUCH grater evil is considered un-proven by the general public. It is thus dangerous when good people make a false accusation against evil persons.


I make a distinction between two key assertions:


Assertion #1: "The authorities did the whole Covid thing as a deliberate evil deed with no redeeming positive rationale." (I will refer to proponents of this assertion as "hard-core Covid accusers.")


Dr. David Martin makes this assertion in his video interview at 


in which, at time point 49:13,  Martin makes this assertion in these exact words:


"Ralph Baric and Antony Fauci and Peter Daszac admitted directly, not by implication, admitted directly that they would attack U.S. citizens with a pathogen they made so that those citizens would take the vaccine that they made who would never have otherwise taken. That is not my allegation. That is their publicly published quotes in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."


Assertion #2: "The authorities and Big Pharma are part of an oppressive ruling elite who take advantage of everything--from Hurricane Katrina and other such natural disasters and naturally occurring pandemics and pandemics caused by the (presumed) accidental release of a bioweapons virus that it was evil to have created--to do evil, specifically to strengthen their control over the have-nots and to make more money at the expense of the have-nots."


Assertion #1--"authorities did the whole Covid thing deliberately"--is the assertion that I am skeptical of.


Assertion #2--"authorities took advantage of the Covid pandemic to do evil" is no-doubt true and I have written about it already on my website. But assertion #2 does NOT imply assertion #1.

I am skeptical of assertion #1 because the hard-core Covid accusers do not act they way they would if they really believed they had persuasive evidence for assertion #1--that Fauci et al deliberately made the whole Covid thing happen

First, the hard-core Covid accusers are mysteriously uninterested in the bombshell PNAS article that Dr. David Martin claims proves assertion #1.


A proponent of assertion #1 sent me the interview of Dr. David Martin citing this bombshell PNAS article and told me it was one of the most persuasive pieces of evidence he knew of for that assertion;

And yet nobody who makes assertion #1 is publicizing the URL of this supposedly damning bombshell of an article that supposedly proves assertion #1, or even seems interested in reading the article (not even the person who told me Dr. David Martin was an extremely persuasive and credible authority.)


I suspect that the people who are making assertion #1 do not, themselves, really believe that this PNAS article actually exists with the admission by Fauci that Dr. Martin claims is in it. If they did believe it, then why are they not moving heaven and hearth to find the article and shouting from the rooftops about its existence? If they don't believe it really exists, then why do they promote Dr. Martin's claims so enthusiastically?

Second, why don't the hard-core Covid accusers make a serious attempt to make Fauci debate?


I have written about why Fauci is evil here, where I state explicitly that Fauci is an evil man.


The difference is that I PROVE Fauci is an evil man (to those who read my article at least). The hard-core Covid accuser people, in contrast, have not proven it and do not act the way they would act if they really believed they had persuasive evidence for assertion #1--that Fauci deliberately made the whole Covid thing happen.


I would be a lot LESS skeptical of assertion #1--"the authorities did the whole Covid thing"--if its proponents did what it takes to make the general public know that they challenged Fauci (by which I mean, here and below, Fauci or equivalent authorities) to debate and that Fauci refused to do so.


But they have not yet done what it takes. Why not? It is one thing to relatively privately ask Fauci to debate, as some people have apparently done, and to just get a "no" response from Fauci that goes un-noticed by the world.


It is another thing entirely to make it impossible for Fauci to refuse to debate without being exposed on a very large scale as refusing to debate and hence seen as being AFRAID to debate for fear that he would LOSE the debate because he knows he has been lying.


In order to make this large scale undermining of Fauci's credibility happen proponents of assertion #1--"the authorities did the whole Covid thing"--must make the challenge for Fauci to debate well-known to millions of people. And the way to do THAT is to enlist into the ranks of those making the debate challenge not only hard-core Covid accusers but ALSO the very large number of other people who would love to see this debate happen. By "other people" I mean the many people who support Fauci and agree with him and who would LOVE to see the debate happen because they expect that the hard-core Covid accuser side would be demolished and they would LOVE to see that happen. These pro-Fauci people could--and SHOULD--be included among those making the challenge to debate. This is because lots of people genuinely think Fauci is telling the truth and want that fact to be known by those who currently think otherwise, and believe the debate would accomplish this. (During the Vietnam War in 1968, pro-war people eagerly looked forward to the Vietnam War teach-in/debates, expecting the pro-war side would prevail, and were surprised when it did not.) 


In the absence of such a large-scale public challenge to debate, Fauci's current excuse for not debating those making relatively private debate challenges is fairly credible: he has the entire mass media and all of the big health institutions and universities, etc., saying he's right, so why should he waste his time debating with some marginal nay-sayers whom the general public mostly ignores? It's the same reason why reputable scientists don't agree to debate flat-earth-ers or deniers of the theory of evolution. They have no reason to debate such people. And their refusal to debate such marginal people does not undermine their credibility in the eyes of the general public.


To be frank, the absence of such a well-publicized large-scale public challenge for Fauci to debate coupled with the unpersuasive excuse given by hard-core Covid accusers for the absence of such a well-publicized challenge--that Fauci always just says 'no'--makes it seem that it is really the hard-core Covid accuser people who are afraid of having the debate because they don't do the one thing that would have at least a chance of making the debate happen and would make the public very suspicious of Fauci if he refused to debate.


If the hard-core Covid accusers did what it takes to make this debate have a real chance of happening, and Fauci still refused, THEN the hard-core Covid accuser case would become ENORMOUSLY more credible on a very large scale, including to skeptics such as myself. So why don't the hard-core Covid accuser people do this? Whenever I have proposed it I only hear excuses for not doing it, that Fauci just says no.



Taking advantage of something is not proof of having made it happen.


Yes, the ruling class took advantage of Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters (as shown here) to do evil things. But does that constitute one iota of evidence that the ruling class deliberately created Hurricane Katrina or the other disasters? No, it does not. In contrast, the 9/11 truthers who say that 9/11 was an inside job base their argument NOT merely on the fact that the ruling class used the 9/11 attack as a pretext for launching its "War on Terror" and Patriot Act restrictions on our liberties, but also--crucially for the credibility of the "inside job" accusation--on actual physical and circumstantial evidence of the specifically inside-job nature of the event. 

Making weapons is not the same thing as deliberately attacking one's own citizens with them.

If it is true (as it may very well be true--I don't know), as Sen. Rand Paul asserts, that Fauci et al deliberately created the SARS-CoV-2 virus with gain of function procedures in a bio-weapons lab, that is not the same thing as DELIBERATELY infecting the public with a dangerous virus--which is what assertion #1 says.

Consider this incidentIn 1961 a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress carrying two 3.8-megaton Mark 39 nuclear bombs broke up in mid-air, dropping its nuclear payload near Goldsboro, North Carolina, in the process.  Yes, it was and is evil for the government to produce nuclear bombs. And yes, a nuclear bomb almost accidentally exploded in North Carolina. But no, this accident does not provide one iota of evidence that the government was deliberately trying to kill Americans with a nuclear bomb, right?


Covering up or downplaying the risks of a vaccine is not the same thing as deliberately using the vaccine to harm rather than benefit people.


The fact that the mRNA vaccines may have serious negative effects on some people does not constitute evidence of assertion #1--that the authorities deliberately did the whole Covid thing. The first polio vaccine also had serious negative effects--it gave some people polio--but that didn't prove, or even suggest, that the people who developed and promoted that vaccine engaged in a deliberate evil deed.

The fact that doctors often cover up or downplay the risks of the Covid-19 vaccines (because they wrongly believe this is necessary for public health) does not mean that these doctors know the vaccines are mainly harmful and not beneficial.

Just because evil people do something does not prove that it is a bad thing to do.


Sometimes evil people MUST do GOOD things in order to stay in power. Note that the fact that the ruling class is evil does not mean it has no motive to provide good public health measures such as, possibly, mainly beneficial vaccines. The ruling class knows that if there is a pubic health threat and it does NOT do what the public believes is necessary to protect public health, then it will be hastening the day of revolution. The point is that just because the ruling class is evil does not mean that everything it does is a bad thing. Hitler abolished the initially secret evil euthanasia program when the public learned about it and was outraged. Yes, Hitler was evil, but his abolishing the euthanasia program was a good thing, not a bad thing, right?


More reasons I am skeptical of assertion #1


I am skeptical of the assertion that the mRNA vaccine is the main cause of excess deaths in young adults noted by life insurance companies, a claim made to support "the authorities made the whole Covid thing" assertion #1, which claim, by the way would not prove that assertion even if the claim were true. Here is an article about this claim:

What does USA Group Term Life Insurance Report say about Young Adult Excess Deaths in Fall 2021?

I am skeptical of the hard-core Covid accuser alarmism that is based on data in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System VAERS. As discussed here, anybody can report any event experienced by a person who ever had the vaccine, but only events experienced by vaccinated people are entered into the VAERS data base. Since about 80% of Americans have received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, and since many of those people, just like those never vaccinated, were going to experience some kind of adverse event even if they had not received the vaccine, the existence of these adverse events does not prove that the vaccine was the cause. 

I am skeptical of the claims that the incidence of myocarditis in vaccinated males ages 12-29 constitutes proof of assertion #1, that the authorities are deliberately trying to harm young men. As the above-linked article reports: 

VAERS data also first surfaced reports of myocarditis following the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. After extensive review, scientists determined that the benefits of the vaccine ultimately outweigh the increased risk of myocarditis observed in some of the vaccinated (primarily males ages 12–29).

Moreover, additional studies show the risk of myocarditis to be 16 times greater among those infected with COVID-19 than the uninfected, suggesting that full vaccination is helpful in preventing myocarditis and other complications of the disease.


Where is the evidence countering the above statement about myocarditis? And even if it were shown that some Covid-19 vaccines are in fact very harmful, as pointed out above with the example of the polio vaccine, that would not constitute evidence for assertion #1.

I am skeptical of the reporting by Global Research on this topic. Read one example here of how its reporting is misleading.

I am skeptical of RFK, Jr.'s defense of assertion #1 in his recent book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health; I write about why I am skeptical in my article about that book here. Specifically I show that RFK, Jr., whether intentionally or not, cites scientific studies very misleadingly, thus rendering less than credible all of his assertions. For example:

RFK, Jr. writes a subsection titled, “"Vaccinated Are Equally Likely to Spread COVID." RFK, Jr. misleads his readers in the second paragraph by ignoring the KEY fact that while (as he says) vaccinated people WHEN INITIALLY INFECTED have as much virus (i.e., viral load which causes viral shedding which can infect others) as the amount of virus in unvaccinated people when initially infected, VACCINATED PEOPLE CLEAR THIS VIRUS MORE QUICKLY THAN UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND ARE HENCE LESS LIKELY TO SPREAD INFECTION OVER TIME. Here is a recent scientific study that shows this: ; it reports


"Breakthrough infections among vaccine recipients were characterized by a faster clearance time than that among unvaccinated participants, with a mean of 5.5 days (95% credible interval, 4.6 to 6.5) and 7.5 days (95% credible interval, 6.8 to 8.2), respectively. The shorter clearance time led to a shorter overall duration of infection among vaccine recipients (Figure 1G)."


Did the authorities really personally get jabbed with the Covid 19 vaccine?

I would be a lot LESS skeptical of assertion #1 if there were persuasive evidence that authorities such as Fauci only pretended to get the Covid-19 vaccination but really did not. This would be the case if they knew it was mainly harmful. There would have to be individuals involved in preparing the phony syringes that we have been shown used to inject the vaccine into these authorities; have any such individuals been whistleblowers?


Why does Fauci not sue Rand Paul for slander about his gain-of-function accusation?

Fauci's refusal to sue Rand Paul for slander, contrary to the claim by some hard-core Covid accusers, does not provide evidence that he is afraid he would lose the case in court. The reason he doesn't sue is because the U.S. Constitution makes such a suit impossible:


U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:


The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. [my emphasis]


Fauci has accused Rand Paul of slander however: read about it here.

My Other Articles on this topic:

Some Problems With Vaccines written in May 2020 featuring the book Dissolving Illusions by Suzanne Humphries.




In May 2020 I wrote The REAL Problem With Dr. Fauci. 


I point these articles of mine out to make it clear that while I am skeptical of assertion #1 I have advocated assertion #2.


I also have published articles by others that condemn the "only vaccines" approach that has destroyed our public health system, for example:


"Kriminal Kapitalism Kills COVID-19’s Racist Class War"




"Demons Drink Nectar from the Skulls of the Murdered Masses—No Matter How High the Mountain of Bodies, Profits Come First!"


bottom of page