Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  While they claimed these were "safe" simulations of biological warfare, the experiments included the aerial spraying of the carcinogenic Zinc Cadmium Sulphide on people living in the South and East of England between 1955 and 1963. In 1963 and again in 1964, they released B globigii bacteria [5] on the London Underground. This causes a range of illnesses including the blood poisoning condition septicaemia which, if untreated, can develop into the lethal sepsis.

  These are just a couple, among many historical examples, which demonstrate that the State franchise is willing to kill us to achieve its objectives. While distressing, what we are about to discuss is by no means unthinkable.

  When the UK Prime Minister addressed the nation on March the 23rd 2020, to inform them of their lockdown house arrest, he said that the everyone had to work together to stay safe during their enforced incarceration and beyond. There is no direct evidence that he was personally aware, but enforcing people to remain in their own homes during the outbreak of a respiratory virus certainly increased the mortality risk.

  When we consider the changes that were made to the death registration process every one increased the likelihood of COVID 19 misdiagnosis. Similarly, when we look at the lockdown and other policy responses to SARS-CoV-2, they all consistently heightened the mortality risk. We will examine these through the prism of the UK State franchise response but all pseudopandemic nations implemented similar policies.

  Health services were reconfigured to treat virtually nothing but COVID 19. This had disastrous public health implications, as all other potentially life threatening conditions were largely overlooked. The lockdown suppression model was never considered effective precisely because the public health costs were known to outweigh the benefits. The only circumstance in which epidemiologists and other public health experts recommended using this approach was for an outbreak of an extremely virulent, very high mortality disease.

  The running UK mortality total, reported by the MSM [6] throughout the pseudopandemic, came from a mixture sources. These included the NHS, the CQC, Public Health England (PHE), Public Health Scotland (PHS) and various other statistical agencies, from both the statutory and private sector.

  This reporting grabbed the headlines, but was chaotic and meaningless from a statistical perspective. The MSM did not report the deplorably inaccurate death registration process, and consistently promoted alarm instead of objective rationalism. To understand what happened (and is happening) we will rely upon registered deaths.

  In the UK weekly mortality is most reliably recorded by the Office Of National Statistics (ONS) for England and Wales, the National Records of Scotland (NRS) system and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA). These statistics are collated and represented graphically by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) on their Euromomo website [7].

  ONS, NRS and NISRA all cause (total deaths) mortality figures represent hard data when considered retrospectively. The Death registration process can take a week or two on average, and these figures correspond to the date the death was registered, not the date it occurred.

  It is a legal requirement for all deaths to be registered. While the core conspirators and informed influencers could manipulate the reported cause of death they couldn't easily increase all cause mortality. However, they made every effort to do so.

  Another unique aspect of the pseudopandemic has been the cumulative reporting of mortality. Usually mortality statistics for diseases, such as influenza, are reported on a weekly, monthly quarterly and annual basis. Death tolls from a disease are expressed as seasonal or annual. This is not how the State franchise have reported COVID 19 mortality. As we move through 2021 they are adding 2021 mortality to the 2020 total.

  If this is the new way of reporting mortality then the current 128,000 reported UK deaths from COVID 19 could be contrasted to the 300,000 or so from influenza and pneumonia this century. In reality there is no reason to believe anywhere near 128,000 people died "of" COVID 19 in the UK.

  If we consider registered deaths in 2020, we can see the pseudopandemic mortality in the UK can be characterised by two distinct periods. There was no substantial increase in mortality in Northern Ireland and some very brief and short lived increases in Wales. However, in both England and Scotland there were significant spikes in mortality. This occurred in England between weeks 12 and 21 of 2020 and a smaller but still notable increase in Scotland between weeks 13 and 20.

  This is highly unusual for respiratory illness, which tends to occur in the winter months rather than in the spring. The alleged second wave of COVID 19, between October 2020 and March 2021, corresponded to normal respiratory illness though the notable second increase, following the vaccine roll out, was marked. It remains to be seen if overall (all cause) mortality will be high in 2021. The current indication is that it won't, as we are currently experiencing extremely low all cause mortality [8].

  Therefore we have seen what appears to be two distinctly different periods of mortality. One, the "second wave," was largely in keeping with seasonal variation and the other, the initial outbreak in the spring of 2020, was an anomaly.

  The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (lockdown legislation) came into force on the 26th March 2020 (week 13). UK restrictions were relaxed on the 10th May 2020 (week 20). However, prior to the lockdown restrictions, deeply concerning policies were already in operation.

  This correlation between unseasonable excess mortality and lockdowns was a pattern repeated across the world. Correlation does not prove causation and lockdowns would broadly coincide with increased mortality if they were designed to tackle it. They began as mortality started to rise and were loosened as mortality fell back to more normal levels. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that lockdowns also saw policies implemented which increased mortality.

  The stated reason for the first spring lockdowns was to "flatten the curve," protect the NHS, by reducing the spread of infection, and save lives by protecting the most vulnerable. A sensible approach to providing this protection, clearly defined in the scientific literature and spelled by the WHO's 2019 recommendations, would have been to quarantine the most vulnerable and allow the healthy to face the infection to build community (herd) immunity as quickly as possible. COVID 19 presented a barely measurable threat to the healthy population.

  The UK State franchise's response not only prolonged the exposure of those most at risk from the virus, numerous measures ensured they would receive neither treatment nor a basic standard of care. In no way could it be suggested that lockdown policies protected the most vulnerable. Quite the opposite.

  The Coronavirus Act removed the NHS duty to abide by the National Framework [9]. This meant they could discharge vulnerable SARS-CoV-2 positive patients into care homes [10] thereby introducing it to otherwise uninfected and isolated care settings. The extent of this practice was considerable.

  A UK State franchise report [11] into problems with the distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE), reinforcing the pseudopandemic story, also noted the following:

  "Some 25,000 patients were discharged to care homes from hospitals, some without being tested for COVID-19, even after it became clear that people could transmit the virus without having symptoms. This contributed significantly to the deaths in care homes during the first wave."

  While pseudopandemic discussion of asymptomatic spread were asinine, nonetheless this indicates the scale of the operation to move vulnerable, possibly infected individuals, into care settings. Even if infection rates were much lower than reported, an effort of this size maximised exposure, among the small percentage of the population that were at an appreciable risk, to the virus.

  Mortality peaked on the 11th of April and the UK State franchise published its COVID 19 Action Plan [12] on the 15th April. This seemingly insane policy of discharging potentially SARS-CoV-2 positive patients from hospital into care homes was deemed "necessary" by the UK state to create "capac
ity" in the NHS. They stated:

  "The UK Government with the NHS set out its plans on the 17th March 2020 to free up NHS capacity via rapid discharge into the community and reducing planned care.....We can now confirm we will move to institute a policy of testing all residents prior to admission to care homes."

  From the 17th March 2020 (week 12), during a supposed global pandemic, The NHS were discharging vulnerable patients into care homes without testing them for SARS-CoV-2. On 2nd April 2020 (Week 13) the NHS combined this with instructions that care home residents should not be conveyed [13] to hospital. The traffic of infected vulnerable patients was one way.

  The pseudopandemic was global and this policy of introducing the disease into isolated vulnerable populations wasn't limited to the UK. Similar scandals emerged in France [14], Germany, Sweden and elsewhere. In Italy even the WHO referred to their policy [15] as a "a massacre." This wasn't just happening in Europe either. The same policy was being conducted in the US.

  On the 25th March 2020 the New York State Health Department issued a directive compelling care homes to open their doors to patients who had tested positive [16] for SARS-CoV-2. Just like UK, Italy and nearly every other pseudopandemic State franchise, the US policy was accompanied by a withdrawal of healthcare, chaotic PPE distribution and staff asymptomatic self isolation directives that created a chronic shortages at the worst possible time.

  In the UK, the process of filling care homes with SARS-CoV-2 infections continued for at least a month. While the Action Plan was published on 15th April, this only offered a future commitment to move towards testing. Meanwhile the healthy were under house arrest, thus both reducing the effectiveness of their immune systems and limiting their capacity to tackle the virus through natural immunity. This did not go unnoticed [17] by the scientific and medical community.

  Prof. Carl Henneghan from the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the epidemiologists Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration reported:

  "In order to free up space in hospitals, older patients were discharged into care homes without even being tested for the virus. In the two weeks after lockdown, when the risk of infection should have been waning, a further 1,800 homes in England reported outbreaks."

  As previously mentioned, this disgusting practice was combined with almost the complete withdrawal of primary healthcare from the care sector. GP's refused to attend [18] the care homes due to "the restrictions" and were conducting video consultations, often with the carers rather than the patients. Far from being "protected" by the State franchise, the most vulnerable were put at maximum risk and abandoned to their fate.

  Other measures were introduced and all of them made the situation worse. In pursuit of the pseudopandemic, the State franchise, under the leadership of the core conspirators and their informed influencers, made a concerted effort to ensure as many deaths as they could.

  The UK State told care staff that they must self isolate [19] if they had symptoms, even if they had tested negative, which was unlikely because most couldn't access functioning tests. They also told care staff that they must use PPE when caring for patients.

  While most care homes are privately run businesses, access to PPE was then limited by the State franchise [20]. At the same time non-care staff, such as cooks, maintenance staff, postal workers and others, were not required either to access tests or use PPE. Thus withdrawing carers while maintaining the influx of potential infection into the care homes.

  The restrictions placed upon care staff increased the already chronic staff shortages [21] in the care sector. This meant care homes were both understaffed and more reliant upon agency staff who then moved between care homes, spreading the SARS-CoV-2 infection widely among the most vulnerable.

  Trapped in care homes with overburdened, unprotected staff, unable to cope with both their own fear and the mounting mortality, the State felt it was an opportune moment to suspend all safety inspections [22], in both hospital and care settings. This was supposedly to "limit infections" although every other initiative appeared to increase them. Yet again ending inspections raised the mortality risk for the most vulnerable.

  While this appalling situation was being orchestrated there were widespread reports [23] of residents having “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) notices attached to their care plans, without their knowledge or consent. This practice extended beyond the elderly to other vulnerable adults, such as those with learning difficulties. [24]

  During the spring "outbreak" testing was not readily available in care homes [25]. This left care workers uncertain if either they or the people they cared for were "negative." The Randox tests that were issued by the State franchise not only failed to reach care settings on time, they were then withdrawn because they admittedly didn't work [26]. Instead care staff were reliant upon the limited number of drive through test centres. Usually many miles from where they lived and worked.

  By September 2020, long after thousands had died in care homes, they State still hadn't resolved this problem. Again, a combination of State led initiatives combined to create the worst possible conditions in care settings. All this must be seen in the context of the completely unnecessary levels of fear created by the State and it's MSM propaganda machine [27]. Just like everyone else, care staff were terrorised.

  The British Medical Journal published early analysis of what they called the staggering number of non COVID deaths [28] in care setting. ONS statistics indicated that of the 30,000 deaths that occurred in care homes during the "spring outbreak" only 10,00 or less could possibly be attributed to COVID 19. Yet every death in care homes was reported to the public by the MSM as evidence of the deadly virus.

  A study by the Queen’s Nursing Institute [29] found the following practices, commonly operating in Care Homes, at the height of the pseudopandemic:

  “Having to accept patients from hospitals with unknown Covid-19 status, being told about plans not to resuscitate residents without consulting families, residents or care home staff…..21% of respondents said that their home accepted people discharged from hospital who had tested positive for Covid-19…..a substantial number found it difficult to access District Nursing and GP services….25% in total reporting it somewhat difficult or very difficult during March-May 2020.”

  These life threatening practices were a direct result of official guidance, issued by registration bodies and health services, in response to the UK State franchise’s lockdown legislation. The likelihood of all these various measures coalescing to create a perfect storm in care settings is extremely remote. It is unpalatable though not unthinkable to describe this as a cull.

  Had such policies converged so disastrously during just one "wave" then, while extremely unlikely, perhaps error could be argued. Regrettably these dangerous policy decisions, consistently increasing the mortality risk, were a permanent feature of the pseudopandemic response measures. Harmful policies continued throughout both subsequent lockdown and non lockdown periods.

  The first hard lockdown ended on the 10th May 2020. NHS orders not to convey vulnerable people to hospital had been rescinded and hospitals had begun routinely screening for SARS-CoV-2, prior to discharge, by the end of April. By mid June 2020, excess mortality in England & Wales had been below the seasonal average for more than 13 weeks [30]. Deaths in care settings were at or below normal levels [31] and COVID 19 accounted for less illness and death than combined influenza and pneumonia.

  With much lower hospital admissions and mortality, soundbites like "flatten the curve" and "stay home, protect the NHS, save lives" were no longer tenable. People were starting to think the pseudopandemic might be over.

  Therefore, the MSM propaganda shifted away from mortality towards cases and the use of face masks. Case numbers were solely dependent upon testing so they were easy to fix. However, without pressure on the NHS and related mortality the core conspirators needed to divert attention away from the fact that rising case numbers inversely correlated to falling mortality
figures. A new narrative was required until the normal winter season of respiratory illness could be exploited upon its return.

  Consequently the MSM told the public [32] that wearing masks would protect them from the SARS-CoV-2 respiratory virus. This too was policy that presented a significant risk to public health.

  After years of gold standard science [33] demonstrating no benefit to wearing face masks as protection against viral respiratory infections, suddenly they became mandatory [34]. Despite having said for months that masks didn't work [35], the UK State franchise changed its mind [36] on June 4th 2020. The very next day the WHO also reappraised its opinion, issuing new guidance tentatively supporting the wearing of masks. This decision had nothing to do with medical science and showed a complete disregard for the welfare of the public.

  BBC Newsnight correspondent Deborah Cohen revealed that it was political lobbying [37] and not "new science" that influenced the WHO's decision. Originally the WHO did not recommend [38] the widespread use of face masks because there was no reason to wear one, unless caring for a sick patient. Dr. Mike Ryan (WHO director), speaking in late March [39] 2020 said:

  "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly."

  Ryan had good reason to make this statement. The gold standard of science is the Randomised Control Trial (RCT). To this day, there are no reliable RCT's demonstrating the effectiveness of masks. However, there are many demonstrating their ineffectiveness [40].

  An alleged 2008 Australian RCT study [41] did make a claim that masks were effective. However, bizarrely, they did so by ignoring their own results. After conducted the RCT they concluded:

  "We found no significant difference in the relative risk of respiratory illness in the mask groups compared to control group."