IS THE REPORT OF 100,000 DEATHS FROM COVID RELIABLE BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE NUMBER OF CORONAVIRUS CASES REPORTED UNDER 'NOIDS'?
(Notifications of infectious diseases (NOIDs). Notifications about suspected infectious diseases, collected by Public Health England (PHE).)
Back in March (5.3.2020) Corona was made a Notifiable Disease in England, to add to those already so designated. Notifiable diseases HAVE to be notified by doctors to the Proper Officer (formerly the Medical Officer of Health) within a specified time frame! It is a statutory obligation. The returns can be accessed here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/949867/NOIDS-weekly-report-week53-2020.pdf
If you look up the number of Corona virus cases reported (page 13/14) you will discover an even more startling fact. For the THREE MONTHS September to December, 2020 (see below) 4775 cases were reported from up to 86 Local Authority areas. Note these were cases NOT deaths. Even if we were to multiply this figure by three to cover the time span April to December, the number of reported cases is still likely to be less than fifteen thousand. The problem is that in the same time span the Government through Boris has announced more than one hundred thousand deaths from the disease.
According to this site https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate the case mortality rate is as follows:
| United Kingdom | 1.1% in Mar 14 | 2.8% in Feb 1 | +1.7 pp |
So even taking a worst case scenario of a 3% mortality rate, the number that might have been expected to die in the last three months of 2020 based on the NOIDS reporting system (3% of 4775 = 143.25) would be only 143!
Another important question that should be addressed is, if the above figures can be trusted, and they are from an authoritative source, why should the case mortality rate have almost trebled recently from what it was in March? Of course the Government has been eager to suggest a more virulent strain of the virus which is somewhat convenient.
Could it be that the increase also parallels the increasing application of mass vaccination as illustrated in the following graph?
More information on vaccination-caused adverse reactions and deaths here: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-green-shoots-of-truth-slowly-emerge.html
Nor would a graph of these figures in any way replicate those suggested by national PCR testing. (Source: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ )
All cases data
All deaths data
It is very difficult to see how these graphs can in any way be reconciled with the formal NOIDS NOTIFIABLE DISEASE statistics without ruining the credibility of one or the other! THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD EXPLAIN THE DISPARITY!
WEEK NO. REPORTED NO. OF LA'S
WEEK 2020/36 week ending 06/09/2020 126 57
WEEK 2020/37 week ending 13/09/2020 412 80
WEEK 2020/38 week ending 20/09/2020 227 76
WEEK 2020/39 week ending 27/09/2020 523 83
WEEK 2020/40 week ending 04/10/2020 729 86
WEEK 2020/41 week ending 11/10/2020 1090 70
WEEK 2020/42 week ending 18/10/2020 500 81
WEEK 2020/43 week ending 25/10/2020 105 53
WEEK 2020/44 week ending 01/11/2020 91 30
WEEK 2020/45 week ending 08/11/2020 117 49
WEEK 2020/46 week ending 15/11/2020 87 40
WEEK 2020/47 week ending 22/11/2020 109 35
WEEK 2020/48 week ending 29/11/2020 230 42
WEEK 2020/49 week ending 06/12/2020 76 44
WEEK 2020/50 week ending 13/12/2020 181 45
WEEK 2020/51 week ending 20/12/2020 50 22
WEEK 2020/52 week ending 27/12/2020 85 20
WEEK 2020/53 week ending 03/01/2021 37 24
TOTAL FOR 3 MONTHS SEPT-DEC 4775
CONFIRMATION OF OVER-REPORTING (16.7 TIMES!) IN USA. DID THE SAME THING HAPPEN IN UK?
New CDC Guidelines Inflate COVID-19 Deaths by at Least 16.7-Fold
The report examined COVID-19 fatalities through August 23, 2020 and compared them using the CDC's guidelines that had been in place since 2003 and those put into place in March 2020 for COVID-19. You can see the results in their figure below, which shows, "Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 [fatalities would] be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported."[v]
Only with accurate data can individuals and health officials make decisions to truly protect health, and as the report noted, "It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis."[x] It's also one more reason why now is more important than ever to take a stand for health freedom.
THE SLOWLY EMERGING DEADLY COVID VACCINE SCANDAL
New CDC Guidelines Inflate COVID-19 Deaths by at Least 16.7-Fold
The report examined COVID-19 fatalities through August 23, 2020 and compared them using the CDC's guidelines that had been in place since 2003 and those put into place in March 2020 for COVID-19. You can see the results in their figure below, which shows, "Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 [fatalities would] be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported."[v]
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: Int'l. Message for Freedom and Hope
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpMWDCX1yMI&feature=emb_logo
From: https://www.outersite.org/the-human-cull-accelerates/
ReplyDeleteThe Human Cull Accelerates
2, February 2021
In Critical Thinking’s final analysis, How We Live, published on 18th October 2019 (ironically the same day as the rehearsal for the COVID trojan – Event 201), we implied that the human cull was imminent. In the video that summarises that research, I was more explicit – from about 38 minutes in.
The anomalous rise in deaths after the “lockdown”, first imposed in March 2020 in the UK, were an early indication that the plan to cull the human cattle was underway. Contrary to claims by the establishment that these were “COVID deaths”, a large proportion of (if not all) premature deaths were from causes other than “coronavirus”; multi-factor debilitation of immune systems is highlighted in our last paper COVID-19:Plunder and Population Reduction).
Recent data from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggest that the programme to administer mRNA vaccines to large proportion of the UK population is accelerating the cull; official data show a surge in premature deaths during the first two weeks of January 2021.
What is causing the sudden rise in mortality in the UK?
“After a stark rise in all-cause mortality within the over 80s and across other age groups in the United Kingdom in the first few weeks of January, it is important to enquire what has led to this sudden dramatic shift.
Whilst the media mainstream have been pre-occupied with the 100,000 covid-19 death toll, most have failed to comment on the sudden shifts in overall mortality in England and Wales.
In this episode we explore some of the potential reasons for the sudden increase in all-cause mortality.
Also on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/BPSq6fUX9hQq/
Not only is there a wide body of verifiable evidence that confirms the intention to reduce the global population but, as mentioned a few weeks ago, a 2012 study revealed the potentially lethal consequences of mRNA vaccines. We suggested that authority will claim any deaths from vaccination are from COVID but mRNA vaccine deaths have been predicted by experts, including Delores Cahill.
Dolores Cahill PhD speaking about mRNA vaccines
“I suppose there are potentially three adverse reactions”
ReplyDeleteMarco
3 hours ago
Oh dear...someone missed the memo - the UK took COVID off the NOIDS list, because it had become endemic and was not lethal enough to feature on that list (or more likely, they could no longer follow the rules set out for a NOID, because those are supposed to be treated in a very few selected hospitals).
Tim Veater
Tim Veater
28 minutes ago
@Marco Not quite accurate I'm afraid Marco but I get your gist. Coronavirus is still on the NOID list (from 5/3/2020) but it was removed from the High Consequence Infectious Disease list (HCID) on the 19th March, 2020 having been on it as an interim measure from that January.
Marco
Marco
14 minutes ago
@Tim Veater Ah, yes, you're right. Fortunately, we have this:
https://fullfact.org/health/noids-covid/
And if you do not believe what is stated there, try and find the annual report of 2018 or 2019, and count the number of influenza cases...those are so low that no one in their right mind would ever consider that an accurate indication of all cases.
Tim Veater
Highlighted reply
Tim Veater
1 minute ago
@Marco Yes, a very suspicious total disappearance of several typical respiratory diseases that I touched here http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2021/01/
and formerly if you want to take a look. Also this touches on the topic and the correlation between vaccine roll-out to the old and an almost trebling of the mortality ratio! http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2021/01/
My crib with government and media it is so one sided, propagandist and blind to anything that goes against the preferred narrative. That is a recipe for disaster as we have seen and are seeing but not through the BBC and other outlets.
HUGE Story 👏 1st £7000 Compensation For MASK Discrimination 😳 Here We Go....
ReplyDelete106,802 views•18 Jan 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R_w9D95k6A
See: https://fullfact.org/health/noids-covid/
ReplyDeleteEXCERPTS:
We’ve seen many claims on Facebook and on Instagram that just 13,844 people in England and Wales were infected with Covid-19 in 2020. Readers have also asked us to look into it.
This claim is not true. It’s a misunderstanding of data for the statutory notifications of infectious diseases (NOIDs).
Just over 2.4 million people in England and Wales tested positive for Covid in 2020. We do not know the total number who have been infected, but it is probably much higher, because many people are not tested.
By our count, there were in fact 18,152 disease notifications of Covid through NOIDs last year. However, there were far more notifications by labs testing for SARS-CoV-2, the infectious agent that causes Covid, including 235,250 in the last week of the year alone.
Research in the summer estimated that around 6% of the population of England had Covid antibodies, meaning that they had been previously infected with the virus. The true percentage will be higher now, since not everybody who is infected makes enough antibodies to detect, and many more have been infected since the summer.
Marco
ReplyDeleteTim Veater Ah, yes, you're right. Fortunately, we have this: https://fullfact.org/health/noids-covid/ And if you do not believe what is stated there, try and find the annual report of 2018 or 2019, and count the number of influenza cases...those are so low that no one in their right mind would ever consider that an accurate indication of all cases.
Tim Veater
ReplyDelete4 minutes ago (edited)
@Marco Cribs are not just for Christmas then? That's good to know. I was just and belatedly reading the earlier reference you posted regarding the disparity between 'NOIDS' notifications and alleged actual cases and the alleged more than 100 000 deaths from this alleged organism. I use the word alleged advisedly because first and foremost it has been admitted by the Govt. that not once has the organism been isolated from either a living or dead sufferer from analogous symptoms. The article you recommended here https://fullfact.org/health/noids-covid/
if taken at face, is in fact an assessment that England's only system for monitoring infectious disease is in fact unreliable and not fit for purpose. That is quite a startling conclusion if true. It supports its assessment by contrasting the figure produced by doctors of real cases with the proven wholly unreliable one, of PCR testing, which besides having a reliability of about 3%, has shown absolutely no correlation with symptoms either moderate or severe in the general population. Evidence of positive PCR testing in the severely ill in the hospital setting, is to be expected and should not be extrapolated to the general healthy population. To restrict schooling to children based on this unrepresentative sample, when all the epidemiological evidence proves, for whatever reason, children are not at risk, and to promote highly speculative vaccination to it for no reason, borders on reckless experimentation with their health. Now as to your second point regarding vital statistics generally, as with all statistics they have to be carefully interpreted and are subject to manipulation. Even if you think the NOIDS system hugely underestimates the scale of disease, and note again this is disease not death, it should still be reliable as far as trends over the year are concerned. Insofar as the graph diverges from that claimed by the Govt., it should concern us, and it clearly does. It raises the genuine question to what extent the increased death rate following the introduction of control measures was incorrectly places at the door of 'Covid' rather than the true cause, probably exacerbated by the very clumsy and inaccurate production and interpretation of death certificates. Finally I cannot help noticing you cannot debate the facts without a little demeaning 'sideswipe' with your reference to "you and your ilk". This does not negate the fact that for some unexplained reason, seasonal flu appears to have disappeared in the last year, and other respiratory causes of death reduced across the board, to be replaced exclusively with Coronavirus (only a fool would consider this possible) nor that post the vaccination programme, the actual mortality rate (the percentage suffering analogous symptoms dying) has apparently nearly trebled. These are all facts that cannot be just brushed away with a glib insult.
ReplyDeleteHighlighted reply
Marco
1 hour ago
@Tim Veater "...is in fact an assessment that England's only system for monitoring infectious disease is in fact unreliable and not fit for purpose." - no, it is a misinterpretation of what NOIDs notifications are meant for. It's explained here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/716212/response/1716497/attach/2/2355%20FOI%20Query%20reguarding%20published%20notifiable%20disease%20data%20and%20COVID%2019%20death%20data.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
SUSPECTED cases only. And those are rather few, because in most cases they're not suspected but KNOWN to be COVID.
PCR testing has a much, much higher reliability than your proclaimed 3%, and there does not need to be a correlation between Ct and severity of the disease for it to be extremely useful as a monitoring tool of the spread of the infection. And while children are not at risk, they CAN spread it to others who ARE at risk. And the more people it infects, the more likely become mutations.
It's also only fools who cannot understand how infectious diseases are reduced in prevalence *when mitigating action is taken to reduce the spread of an infectious disease*.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTim Veater
ReplyDelete2 minutes ago (edited)
@Marco First unless the law has changed radically since I was involved in it "allowing
registered medical practitioners to notify PHE" is not accurate. It is a legal obligation on practitioners, and it would be a foolish practitioner, or corrupt one, to notify an infectious disease unless he was sure of the diagnosis. The GP is by nature a more accurate reflection of a community disease than perhaps any other, and the wide differences in both absolute numbers and trends is not adequately explained in the PHE letter to which you refer. Blatantly something rather odd is going on in the numbers department, as other indicators already referred to, confirm. Contrary to press releases, the NHS is not overwhelmed and the Nightingale facilities are unused, which in a true epidemic would not be the case. So called 'track and trace' has provided no evidence of true disease transmissibility as far as I am aware, despite costing 22 billion pounds to date, nor has there been any clear evidence of 'infected' children passing an actual disease onto adults or anyone else. Fatalities from respiratory symptoms linked to SARS Cov-2 have been overwhelmingly been in aged persons, with serious underlying medical conditions, in institutional settings. This has always been the case, classified differently, though administrative and operational decisions may have exacerbated the situation. The increase in covid mortality rates from 1.1% to 2.8% post vaccination roll out is another worrying indicator. Although the premature death of anyone is tragic, it does not support the narrative that this is a serious risk to the general population or support the draconian measures, most of which are quite pointless, which are causing untold harm in other sectors.
Marco
ReplyDelete5 minutes ago
@Tim Veater As expected, you keep on denying reality because it does not suit your narrative. This includes making up stuff like CFR increasing from 1.1 to 2.8% post vaccination.
Here is reality (which you will likely reject):
On December 8th the first vaccination was given. Up to that point the UK had almost 1.8 million cases of COVID (according to the date recorded for the specimen being taken). There were 63,656 deaths recorded as per December 8. That's a CFR of 3.5%. Oopsie! CFR has decreased post vaccination!
@Marco I think that criticism could equally apply to you! Science relies on disagreement to advance to a position of generally accepted truth. Sometimes that objective is never achieved but virtually all opposing voices have been silenced by government and media. That alone is deeply worrying. Adverse reaction to the various 'vaccines' (of course they are not vaccines in the accepted sense) have been acknowledge by the CDC even, at around 3%. I have listed many of them here: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-green-shoots-of-truth-slowly-emerge.html. Britain's own MHRA has warned against their application in certain categories (those with a history of adverse reaction and pregnant women are two such). Vaccinating children is totally unjustified but that seems to be the intention! Life without a vaccine certificate (as with masks) is set to become increasing difficult. Although a 'yellow card' system is in operation here to record deaths or other adverse effects following injection, I don't believe any statistics as of yet are available although the MHRA has stated that it expected to receive “around 1 Yellow Card report per 1,000 doses administered”. If there are 60 million doses that obviously represents 60,000 cases of adverse reaction! As I have said the increase in mortality recently reported is a cause for concern. The 1.1 to 2.8% is taken from here, an authoritative source which you can take issue with if you like: https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid#the-case-fatality-rate . The mortality ratio is subject to considerable debate and just as the chances differ greatly according to the cohort variable (men twice that of women, black men three times white men, greatly raised risk the older the person, obesity, diabetes, other illnesses etc) so these factors increase the chances of death. This is all REALITY yet you seem to want to deny it, why only you know. Perhaps like the majority subject to blanket propaganda, the nuances of the disease symptoms and their causation have been lost on you. Instead of dealing with the facts and tailoring policy to them, the government has preferred to advance and generate an irrational fear in all sections of the population, although all are not equally at risk. Indeed its approach has undoubtedly made matters much worse for many rather than better as demonstrated in the nursing home sector particularly and now also quite possible for the vaccinated elderly. We shall have to see.
Tim Veater
ReplyDelete1 second ago
@Marco This may be of interest: "“The most enduring myth regarding COVID-19,” the doctors wrote, “is that this is a highly lethal infection. It is not. The data is unequivocal:
COVID-19 kills very rarely and is mostly limited to the medically fragile,
COVID-19 is less deadly than influenza in children,
COVID-19 is similar lethality in the middle adult years and treatable.”
They went on to cite the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) own “best estimate” to demonstrate that the infection fatality rate (IFR) is overall very low:
0-19 years old: 0.00003 (99.997 percent survival rate)
20-49 years old: 0.0002 (99.98 percent survival rate)
50-69 years old: 0.005 (99.5 percent survival rate)
70+ years old: 0.054 (94.6 percent survival rate)
Further, in the presentation, Dr. Gold emphasized that these very high survival rates reflect cases where people have not received treatment with HCQ, or another “miracle” drug, ivermectin, and thus with such simple, inexpensive treatments, they would be much higher still. Gold referenced the testimony of doctors before a U.S. Senate committee in November who said if such treatments had been available, very high numbers of lives could have been saved." https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/frontline-doctors-experimental-vaccines-not-safer-than-covid-19?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com&utm_campaign=c8abc42c37-Freedom_2_2_21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_12387f0e3e-c8abc42c37-407271670
In their white paper, the AFLD summarized their advice to different sections of the population regarding the vaccines.
ReplyDeletea. 0-20: prohibited(exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
b. 20-50 healthy: strongly discouraged (exceedingly low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, risk of lifelong infertility)
c. 50-69 & healthy: strongly discouraged (low risk from COVID, unknown risk of auto-immune disease, unknown risk of pathogenic priming, unknown effect on placenta and spermatogenesis)
d. 50-69 & co-morbid: discouraged (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
e. >70 & healthy: personal risk assessment (experimental vaccine is higher risk than early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
f. >70 & co-morbid: personal risk assessment & advocacy access (experimental vaccine early or prophylactic treatment with established medications)
The doctors concluded, “In medicine, the guiding principle is ‘First, do no harm.’ Widely distributing a COVID-19 experimental vaccine before adequately addressing and clinically evaluating the above concerns is reckless.”
When the rot set in. The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Forces of Darkness (1988)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rII8Vp5nIjc