Pseudopandemic
Page 18
[14] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200529174642/https://www.rt.com/news/489292-france-elderly-covid-deaths-lawsuit/
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200417204409/https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dimension-virus-massacre-italy-nursing-homes-grows-70211273
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201210143224/https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hospital-lobbyists-behind-cuomos-nursing-home-scandal-11600454566
[17] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200713155447/https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dying-of-neglect-the-other-covid-care-home-scandal
[18] - https://archive.is/AE6gK
[19] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200709110708/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings
[20] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200810065418/https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/research-and-innovation/evidence-that-ppe-shortages-fuelled-covid-19-spread-in-care-homes-02-07-2020/
[21] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200823013839/https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/staffing-issues-in-care-homes-have-contributed-to-covid-19-infections
[22] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200317172542if_/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-cqc-inspections-hospitals-care-homes-nhs-a9404476.html
[23] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200403175526/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/01/uk-healthcare-regulator-brands-resuscitation-strategy-unacceptable
[24] - https://www.hsj.co.uk/coronavirus/unprecedented-number-of-dnr-orders-for-learning-disabilities-patients/7027480.article
[25] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210113074131if_/https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-carehomes/uk-care-home-residents-staff-unable-to-get-regular-covid-19-tests-says-care-provider-idUKKCN24V2QG?edition-redirect=uk
[26] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201128111058/https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/16/uk-government-orders-halt-randox-covid-19-tests-over-safety-issues
[27] - https://archive.is/epMqB
[28] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200528083746/https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931
[29] - https://archive.is/cpbAo
[30] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/914446/Weekly_all_cause_mortality_surveillance_week_36_2020_report.pdf
[31] - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsoccurringupto12june2020andregisteredupto20june2020provisional
[32] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200831195426/https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/18/what-kind-of-face-mask-best-protects-against-coronavirus-covid-19
[33] - https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Rancourt-Masks-dont-work-review-science-re-COVID19-policy.pdf
[34] - https://in-this-together.com/face-masks/
[35] - https://archive.is/cSJ02
[36] - https://archive.is/cSJ02
[37] - https://archive.is/jQI7w
[38] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200220085616/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks
[39] - https://archive.is/ObQBz
[40] - https://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Rancourt-Masks-dont-work-review-science-re-COVID19-policy.pdf
[41] - https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(08)01008-4/fulltext
[42] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jebm.12381
[43] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200602144815/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
[44] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210207152246/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099%2820%2930985-3/fulltext
[45] - https://archive.is/sfi8W
[46] - https://archive.is/1Hzxa
[47] - https://archive.is/exelq
[48] - https://archive.is/Ptoji
[49] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30035033/
[50] - https://archive.is/IN80Y
[51] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201027124426/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/
[52] - https://archive.is/JRYBA
[53] - https://archive.is/F5RBt
[54] - https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316
[55] - https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.0030151
[56] - https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.488.4644&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[57] - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
[58] - https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2010.0686
[59] - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-epidemic-waves/
[60] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210113235112/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/designated-settings-for-people-discharged-to-a-care-home/discharge-into-care-homes-for-people-who-have-tested-positive-for-covid-19
[61] - https://archive.is/2NFr1
[62] - https://archive.is/NkZfF
[63] - https://archive.is/PPtCH
[64] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/934792/Weekly_report_mortality_W46.pdf
[65] - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/950313/Weekly_report_mortality__w1.pdf
[66] - https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/why-there-correlation-between-vaccine-rollout-and-increased-covid%E2%80%9319-mortality
[67] - https://archive.is/nBDgu
[68] - https://archive.is/oKR53
[69] - https://archive.is/d8nWp
[70] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201030204347/http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/29509
[71] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200515034552/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/14/the-guardian-view-on-the-care-home-crisis-culpable-neglect
Chapter 9 - The Pseudopandemic Opportunity Realised
The UK State, like most other states, is a franchise of the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP). The core conspirators are among the controlling members of the GPPP. They used their informed influencers, working in key positions within State franchises, to run their pseudopandemic.
COVID 19 presented a low population mortality risk, primarily to older people and those with other health problems (comorbidities). In order to create the pseudopandemic illusion, the UK state franchise, like many others, made a number of legislative and regulatory changes to maximise the number of deaths. They then attributed the considerable mortality they caused to the relatively innocuous COVID 19.
The State Franchise partners with the mainstream media (MSM). The major media corporations are also members of the GPPP. They disseminated most of the pseudopandemic propaganda used to terrorise the public. Disinformation was then combined with exaggerated case numbers, based upon non diagnostic tests, and the rigged mortality statistics to complete the deception.
Genuine scientific enquiry was sidelined, ignored and if necessary censored. Pseudopandemic scientific legitimacy was misappropriated by referencing only the compliant scientific partners of the GPPP, who were well funded to produce erroneous scientific papers and alarming computer models. Many of these so called scientists had considerable financial conflicts of interest and personally profited from their junk science.
Grossly inflated case numbers and heavily manipulated mortality statistics made objective statistical analysis challenging. Thankfully, all cause mortality (total deaths), released in early 2021, enabled some meaningful, if limited, examination. It exposed the pseudopandemic for all to see. If they cared to look.
Statistical agencies like the Office of National Statistics (ONS) were confronted with the prospect of reporting mortality statistics they could no longer rely upon. Not only was the COVID 19 death registration process untrustworthy, but other cha
nges to the reporting process created a further lack of reliability.
Just before the significant spring spike in mortality, on the 30th March 2020, the MSM reported [1] that the UK State had instructed the ONS to change the way they record COVID 19 deaths. Prior to the change, the ONS reported a COVID 19 death only if it was clearly identified as the direct or underlying cause. Explaining the change to recording “mentions” of COVID 19, an unnamed spokesperson for the ONS said:
“It will be based on mentions of Covid-19 on death certificates. It will include suspected cases of Covid-19 where someone has not been tested positive for Covid-19.”
In response to this move by the State, in their guidance the ONS endeavoured to make a distinction:
"From 31 March 2020 these figures also show the number of deaths involving Coronavirus (COVID-19), based on any mention of COVID-19 on the death certificate.....We use the term 'due to COVID-19' when referring only to deaths with an underlying cause of death as COVID-19 and we use the term 'involving COVID-19' when referring to deaths that had COVID-19 mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not."
ONS statistics consistently demonstrated, throughout the pseudopandemic, that more than half of their reported mortality figures related to deaths "involving COVID-19." This distinction was not disputed. Speaking in April 2020 the UK's Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jenny Harries explained the mortality figures:
"For the UK these are COVID 'associated' deaths, they are all sad events, they will not all be deaths as a result of COVID."
Until mid August 2020, a UK COVID 19 death was reported if the decedent had tested positive at any point during the preceding months. An individual may have have been found to have traces of SARS-CoV-2 in March, and then subsequently died of heart failure in August, only for their families to learn that they were recorded as a COVID 19 statistic.
In response to considerable public and scientific pressure [2] this approach changed to only recording a COVID 19 death within 28 days of a positive test. The fact that the test wasn't a diagnostic tool remained unchallenged. However the UK State franchise was among many reluctant to let go of its pseudopandemic numbers. Adding further statistical confusion:
"In England, a new weekly set of figures will also be published, showing the number of deaths that occur within 60 days of a positive test. Deaths that occur after 60 days will also be added to this figure if COVID-19 appears on the death certificate."
The August methodological change reduced claimed COVID 19 deaths [3] by 5,377 in England alone. This didn't make any difference to the number of people who died from COVID 19, it just changed the number of people who reportedly died from COVID 19.
It seems likely that a similarly forced change for case numbers occurred after the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, wrote to the Health Secretary [4] on 3rd June 2020. He was among many who questioned the purpose of the State's testing regime, noting it merely served to pump up so called case numbers.
He informed them it provided neither statistical nor epidemiological value. This seemingly led to the subsequent overnight removal of more than 30,000 claimed cases [5].
When COVID 19 was falsely attributed to the death of the father of journalist and broadcaster Bel Mooney she was able to report her father's story [6] in the mainstream media (MSM). Mooney noted a conversations she had with the registrar:
"The strangest thing is that every winter we record countless deaths from flu, and this winter there have been none. Not one!"
However the MSM did not report the hundreds of families who had long been posting their anger and distress [7] on social media as their loved ones death's were turned into a fake COVID 19 statistics. Bereaved family members, who knew their relatives had not died of COVID 19, were left unable to express their anger through official channels. It was only when families launched a campaign to call for a public inquiry [8] that the MSM and the State franchise even acknowledged them.
The attempts to manipulate the mortality statistics led to some bizarre official statements. For example, speaking on April 16th 2020, during one of the daily national MSM briefings, the UK’s Chief Scientific Officer, Patrick Vallance, said:
“It is worth remembering again that the [Office of National Statistics] ONS rates are people who’ve got COVID on their death certificates. It doesn’t mean they were necessarily infected because many of them haven’t been tested. So we just need to understand the difference.”
The difference was that a significant numbers of decedents were added to COVID 19 mortality statistics without any evidence that they actually had it. Deaths were also being recorded based upon wildly inaccurate tests which didn't indicate that the deceased had developed the corresponding disease. Others were diagnosed based upon the untrained medical opinion of care managers or a case review of symptoms, which could have been from a range of illnesses.
With one of the oldest populations in Europe, Italy was seemingly hit very hard by COVID 19 during the spring outbreak. Citing research by the Italian National Institute of Health, which found no clear COVID 19 cause of death in 88% of deaths attributed to COVID 19 [9], the scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, Professor Walter Ricciardi, said:
“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus……On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus.”
The US Center for Disease Control [10] (CDC) reported:
"For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.9 additional conditions or causes per death."
This was the minimum figure for plausible COVID 19 deaths, the true percentage was almost certainly higher. Nonetheless it was preposterous to claim that a decedent who had cancer, pneumonia and had just had surgery, but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 four weeks earlier, could reasonably be categorised as a COVID 19 death. Yet, that is precisely what happened, and continues to happen, as a result of the pseudopandemic.
Often the propaganda was simply false. The MSM reported the sad death of a 17 year old football fan [11] in Northern Ireland as the "youngest person to die in Northern Ireland linked to Covid-19." Again it took citizen journalists to highlight that the young man died of a heart failure [12] and had tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Yet his death was entered onto the official COVID 19 mortality statistics. His father said:
"I don’t want him to be remembered as a statistic, as the youngest person to have died of Covid. As far as we are concerned he died of heart failure. We just have to get our point across...We’re also having to cope with what I can only describe as a media circus."
This issue of ignoring all comorbidities and automatically attributing COVID 19 as cause of death, frequently with disregard to other more serious health conditions, led to some nonsensical contradictions from the ONS [13]:
"Influenza and pneumonia was mentioned on more death certificates than COVID-19, however COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death in over three times as many deaths between January and August 2020."
Influenza or pneumonia are not usually "notifiable" diseases, the mere "mention" of them did not constitute a reason to automatically record a death as a flu or pneumonia statistic. However, any "mention" of COVID 19 always did.
It is obvious what the intention was. In regions across the UK there was little sign of a global pandemic. Had one been underway every town and city, village and borough would have been deeply affected. Most people would have personally known someone who died from COVID 19. There would have been no need to artificially induce the sense of fear. It would have been a natural emotional response to real world events. Instead the global pandemic was experienced almost entirely through the lens of the MSM.
To suggest that COVID 19 accoun
ted for three times as many deaths as influenza and pneumonia, while flu and pneumonia were on more death certificates, was untenable. Especially in light of the distinct lack of evidence required to enter COVID 19 on a UK Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD).
COVID 19 had a magical curative effect on all other respiratory illness, including influenza. According to the CDC Influenza Like Illness Surveillance Network [14] (ILINet) COVID 19 almost completely eradicated all other ILI's. The cumulative rate of Influenza between September and December 2019 [15] was 8.7% (of specimens tested). For the same period in 2020 [16] that figure was 0.2%. An amazing reduction.
However, SARS-CoV-2's ability to cure influenza wasn't restricted to the US. It had the same effect the world over. The WHO operate the Global Influenza and Surveillance Report System (GISRS) which records influenza positive tests in both the northern and southern hemisphere. In 2020 GISRS registered no influenza [17] at all from week 16 onward. Coincidentally, just as COVID 19 "case" numbers started picking up in western developed nations.
COVID 19 also cured influenza in the UK. If, for example, we look at Public Health England's (PHE) Weekly Influenza Report for week 2, in any previous year [18], we consistently see that early January is always a period influenza outbreaks, hospital admissions and related mortality. In 2020, according to the combined PHE Weekly Influenza and COVID Report [19], there were virtually no flue related incidents.
It appeared that COVID 19 simply replaced influenza. Therefore, if official statistics were reliable, it was impossible that influenza and pneumonia were on more death certificates than COVID 19 because influenza and pneumonia didn't apparently exist in 2020.
As there was no influenza it is also a mystery why the UK State franchise ran its largest ever flu vaccination program [20] in the the autumn of 2020. What were they vaccinating against?
Picking COVID 19 mortality out of the statistical quagmire was tricky. Not just because the data sources were corrupted, but due to the nature of the disease itself.
COVID 19 risks increased considerable with age, as practically all mortality risk does. Statistics for those of working age show a population mortality risk of between 0.0166% and 0.0046%, depending upon who you believed [21]. The COVID 19 risk to the working age population and younger was statistically insignificant.