..and now we see the fallback argument of "it's all a conspiracy".
You need to do much better than that. How about you address the huge conflicts of interest in that vaccine study? Shouting 'conspiracy theory' is an intellectually lazy response that seeks to avoid having to address the points raised.
If the PCR sensitive really did alter the covid diagnosis rate then we would expect to see a step change in the graph of covid cases and covid deaths at that same time. But we don't. The changes in the graph are smooth and natural, indicating that the diagnosis was fairly unaffected by the change.
You can only say that if you know that the testing rate is constant. But testing rate most probably isn't constant. For a start, many people only get tested when required by employer, school, university etc. So holidays such as Christmas will have a huge impact.
Anyway, even the WHO was eventually forced to admit that there was a problem with false positives. And a Swiss immunologist has reportedly said that asymptomatic infection (the cover story for false positives) is a myth.
WHO finally admits the problem of PCR tests
So they eventually reduced the number of cycles. From that point onwards, the COVID test data effectively had junk status.
WHO lowers cycle thresholds for PCR tests
After decades of measuring athletic performance at the Olympics, you wouldn't suddenly redefine how long a metre is, or how long a second lasts. But that is effectively what has been done for COVID PCR tests. They changed the number of PCR cycles, and that is straight up scientific fraud.
...using anecdotes to prove a statistical claim.
It's an important observation, when considered together with PCR test manipulation. And the phenomenon is evidently so widespread that journalists have written articles about 'the worst cold ever'.
...and we are back to conspiracy theories.
And we are back to your intellectual laziness, of labelling anything you don't like as a 'conspiracy theory'. Why should I bother responding in good faith when you display such behaviour?