There is a saying in the computer world, "Rubbish in, Rubbish out" (RIRO) That is what the British people have been subjected to. Yet people still fail to realise its significance for day to day life. They have been blinded by centrally generated fear and apprehension. The problem kicked off with wildly pessimistic projections from Imperial College based on a completely false model. The obsession with the 'R-number' was another crass mistake. Natural immunity obtained from previous SARS type bugs was underestimated as was little understood natural immunity as has been demonstrated by children clearly not previously exposed. The two tests used to produce these maps (PCR in particular) are fatally flawed. The only really reliable statistic is DEATH with distinctive flu-like symptoms. This peaked in March, April and May but even this should be treated with great caution. Despite this particular bug having been around since at least last December (it has been recorded much earlier) deaths only started a precipitous rise AFTER government measures were introduced. It is therefore a moot point as to whether it was the bug or the measures that caused the spike. That increased mortality overwhelmingly affected the old and sick in nursing homes and hospitals often linked to policies of 'Do Not Recusitate' (DNR) linked to the manipulation of the statistics whereby anyone who died with flu like symptoms - a normal winter phenomenon - or without, was declared a Covid case. Rather than these unreliable and misleading 'infection' charts, only hospital admissions from identifiable symptoms and deaths statistics AS RELATED TO NORMAL ONES are reliable on which to base policy and behavioural judgements. Reference to these proves WE ARE NOT IN AN EPIDEMIC and both flu rates and hospitalisations from that cause are seasonally NORMAL. Everything else is government hype that has not only had severe economic consequences (the debt burden surpasses even WWII!) but has actively CAUSED deaths in a younger group of people from depression, isolation and treatable disease. These are the realities that people fail to realise. As has previously been stated, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, and the above map is an a classic example.
But none from flu this year apparently! 150,000 is unreliable as everyone, apart from you it seems, knows. First it is not the figure for the year but a running total but more importantly conflates the symptoms of flu with other primary fatal conditions it would appear just to make the SARS Cov-2 look more dangerous. There is a major disjoint between the notifiable disease statistics and the overall suggested covid deaths, reinforcing the view of statistical manipulation for political purposes. It is generally acknowledged that the PCR test, the figures for which have been used to spread alarm and require isolation, are utterly unreliable to indicate either infection or infectivity. Thirty seven billion pounds have been wasted on a useless 'track and trace' system. The wearing of masks, social distancing and banning of group meetings are based on nothing more than guesswork and have caused untold misery and illness. Information on the adverse effects of the jabs has been suppressed as has any alternative view on the efficacy of the policy. The public has been terrorised for no reason and the sooner people realise it, the better.
This government is absolutely OBSESSED with, for the majority of the population, a relatively low risk bug, whilst piling up and exacerbating other illnesses which have gone undiagnosed and untreated. This is inexplicable and unforgivable myopia. Now they are talking about two covid tests per week for everyone and obligatory covid 'passports' in order to live a normal life. What is wrong with them all? Are they all utterly mad or is there some other sinister agenda driving this thing? More and more sensible people think so.
It is not that I disbelieve there is a bug that can cause a serious disease but that I am very sceptical about how the risk has been presented, namely that everyone is at equal risk, requiring everyone to adopt the behavioural changes required by law. Nor do I accept that masks, disinfectants, closures, and social distancing have been in any way effective in controlling the incidence of disease. The media has uniformly ignored the epidemiological evidence of all the contributory factors that should have been the focus of control but hasn't been. Age, sex, race, disease and institutional settings have overwhelmingly affected the chances of contracting symptoms and subsequent prognosis but have not been addressed. Similarly the significant adverse effects of vaccination have been virtually ignored. All these factors should have required a much more nuanced public information campaign and public policy. For example normality of social intercourse and business should have been aimed at as a priority, whilst focusing on the cohorts at higher risk, rather than promoting a general paranoia and lock down, the economic and psychological consequences of which may be permanent. The most egregious example of bad policy was in relation to schools and school children. The evidence suggests that lock down policies do nothing to curb the incidence of disease, whilst at the same time causing many other profound adverse effects. Nor should generalised vaccination with substances, proved to involve serious biological reactions in about 3% of cases, be promoted to the low risk groups (healthy under 65's) Vaccination passports with their significant social and economic ramifications, should be out of the question. There needs to be a truly independent investigation into the Covid statistics, as to their accuracy (PCR tests are clearly unreliable) as is the actual cause of death in cases. This should be done in parallel with deaths that have followed closely on vaccination, ascribed to Covid, rather than the complications of the jab itself. Incredibly Hancock the Health Secretary admitted this had not even been thought about or catered for. Unfortunately, so much money (billions of pounds) have been expended by government on largely pointless policy, besides the vested interest of big pharma, a truly independent inquiry into these issues is highly unlikely, and as with 9/11, a largely false narrative and the wrong policy will continue to be promulgated to the general public
It is a well known fact that fertility in western men has dropped by about 50% in forty years, so the phenomenon, whether planned or not, is already happening. Further the four genetic 'inserts' in the coronavirus include one with HIV homology which may well have longer term adverse effects. The observed blood clotting in both 'cases' and post vaccination, point to the same biological process taking place, that should caution those not in high risk groups to avoid the jab, which suspiciously most governments are pushing like crazy. Why when there is no prophylactic justification?
The blood clot issue was early on, identified as one of the unusual side effects of the disease. The fact that it has now emerged as a side effect of the AZ jab, that has been engineered to mimic the disease itself, is a cause of genuine concern. The fact that it is in a relatively few number of cases, should not disguise the fact that this is but one of the many thousands of cases, both in America and Britain, where other serious adverse effects have been reported in relation to both the AZ and Pfizer products. This information, as a matter of government policy, has been supressed so as not to interfere with the vaccination programme. The 'vaccines' are novel and insufficiently tested, both for short and long-term consequences and by common consent are dubiously effective in either preventing infection or infectivity. There are worrying indications from the post roll-out spike in deaths, that in the elderly and infirm, the jabs may have hastened death rather than delayed it. They are now being promoted to age groups not at serious risk from the disease itself, including inexplicably and inexcusably, children. Those expressing grave reservations have been silenced by Government, media and professional bodies, so as not to 'rock the boat'. Only UK Column in Britain and a few other outlets, have highlighted the unreliability of the official narrative, designed to influence attitudes and behaviours far more than to protect the public from any notional or significant biological threat.
Wednesday, 26 August 2020
My posts on the Sars Cov 2 (Covid 19) epidemic of fear. No one can say I didn't try! "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear…"
'Behind the mask'. They may have some application in medical and surgical situations, but for the general population in the open air and for children the disadvantages and dangers far outweigh any claimed benefits beside all the social and communication problems. To require masks when every indicator shows the epidemic is over, at least in the UK, is clearly irrational. If they had any efficacy the requirement to wear them would have been made at the beginning of the epidemic not at the end. This is nothing more than an international psy-op and infringement of the basic human right to breathe fresh air unobstructed and to impose it on children shown to be totally immune to the bug is nothing short of an outrage. All of this is mere the prequel to forced vaccination and may be more the clear objective of Gates, Fauci, and big pharma, long before the virus was intentionally launched on the world. The government could have taken a rational and sensible approach to this bug. Instead it chose to panic and terrorise the public on a wildly exaggerated threat. It pretended to science but in fact was driven by superstitious fear which is being perpetuated by its approach to children in and out of school. The much publicised but by the government's own admission, misleading Covid-19 statistics, children - i.e. those under 18 - have not been, and presumably will not be, threatened by the disease. In the whole country during the period of the alleged 'pandemic', only 6 persons in this category have died with Coronavirus. (Note 'with' not 'of') All were suffering from critical, life threatening conditions that they were not expected to survive. Yet on the back of this the government advises children to wear face masks, with all their own and un-researched possible side effects, to say nothing of their psychological and sociological consequences. No wonder the new Covid-guidance is making parents nervous and quite unnecessarily. See: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237475-covid-19-news-children-at-strikingly-low-risk-of-severe-illness/
"Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics." There follows text and graphs taken from a BBC publication here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274It provides statistical information relating to Coronavirus cases and deaths from two different sources - the government Department of Health and Social Care and the semi-independent Office of National Statistics (ONS). The collection and processing of these two related sets of figures are therefore separate and rely on different processes. (See: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/articles/comparisonofweeklydeathoccurrencesinenglandandwales/latest The former come essentially from the NHS (i.e. doctors and managers) the latter mainly from death certificates issued by doctors and registered accordingly. Although on the one hand facts and figures cannot lie, the way in which the figures are collected and interpreted, may lead to false assumptions, as may the way in which they are presented, as here by the BBC. The figures may also throw up additional questions that have no answer.
Figure 1: The cumulative number of deaths involving COVID-19 in England using different data sources, up to 24 April 2020
Daily death counts released on GOV∙UK- pre 29 April reporting
Daily death counts released on GOV∙UK - post 29 April reporting
NHS England by date of death - as published on 3 May
ONS deaths by date of registration – registered by 24 April
ONS deaths by actual date of death – registered by 2 May
05 March 202013 March 202021 March 202029 March 202006 April 202014 April 202022 April 2020
010,00020,00030,000
Number of deaths
21 March 2020 ● Daily death counts released on GOV∙UK- pre 29 April reporting: 257 ● Daily death counts released on GOV∙UK - post 29 April reporting: 264 ● NHS England by date of death - as published on 3 May: 552 ● ONS deaths by date of registration – registered by 24 April: 109 ● ONS deaths by actual date of death – registered by 2 May: 540
Source: Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Office for National Statistics
Figure 3: The cumulative number of care home residence deaths in care homes involving COVID-19 in England
01 May 202028 April 202025 April 202022 April 202019 April 202016 April 202013 April 202010 April 2020
01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,000
Number of deaths
11 April 2020 ● Deaths: 141
Source: Care Quality Commission data published by the Office for National Statistics
To the uninitiated, the BBC report can only create fear and alarm, the necessary prerequisites to ensure people abide by the government's draconian lock-down conditions. You will note there is no attempt to place the figures in context or to discuss how in some respects they may be misleading. For example overall death rates could be compared with previous normal years or more specifically how current Covid-19 deaths relate to previous to overall flu deaths as this might just come down to re-categorising what might normally be expected, particularly in high-risk groups. There is absolutely no attempt to drill down to the actual significance of someone dying with Corona, or discussing how this can be positively misleading as to actual cause. "Corona-related deaths" it is clear means only that the deceased person tested positive to the virus. It is a misleading inflation to say the person died from it. Similarly a false impression is given that all are equally susceptible and at risk when in fact the evidence here and abroad suggests largely only the elderly and ill suffer fatal consequences. For the majority of healthy individuals the consequences appear to be limited to flu-like symptoms or none at all. Even the last graph related to testing is presented as a failure ("Tests stay below 100 000"). However over a million people have been tested in a month - some more than once - but no information is available what percentage show positive, presumably with little or no adverse effect. Other studies around the world show a much larger percentage test positive with little or no symptoms. Whether they are also immune and/or infectious is a separate issue that has not been determined. In the Cornwall case illustrated in which roughly 1:1000 (531 of 568,000) are said to be infected with confirmed cases, of which 20% die (n= 125) In addition it is claimed Covid-19 represents 11% of all deaths. In other words, despite one in a thousand getting the disease, one in five die from it. Frankly these figures appear disproportionate and alarmist. They require explanation and context and cannot be taken at face or projected on the whole population. It is now generally agreed that actual death rate is somewhere between 0.3 and 0.8 % of those that contract the disease which is little different from 'traditional' flu. When the susceptible cohorts, particularly the elderly and those suffering very serious underlying illnesses and diseases, the rate for the under sixty fives must be so minimal as to be practically non-existent. Now how does this square with measures preventing this latter group from working and mixing normally, albeit following sensible hygienic measures? And where is the justification in stoking the paranoia and irrational behaviour we witness in Supermarkets and elsewhere? Given this is a one off epidemic, we would expect total Cornwall deaths to leap by over 10% for the period in question. Until full statistics become available the comparison cannot be made, but I very much doubt that will be the case. If death rate remains roughly the same it means likely that Corona was given undue prominence as a cause of death. If testing shows a much greater proportion of the population is in fact carrying the virus without effect, registering someone dying from another condition, whilst testing positive for Corona may signify very little. Care home deaths certainly appear to be up but it should be noted that in no more than half of the cases are related to Covid. Nor even in these can it be assumed it was the principal cause of death. Some other factor is obviously involved here and the most likely one is directly related to government policy NOT Coronavirus. Although working in nursing homes is considered 'essential', the lock-down has undoubtedly had staffing consequences. It might also have had psychological consequences for both staff and patients including a 'do not revive' policy for the elderly. For the elderly some exercise and social interaction are critical components of survival and any deterioration in nutrition and/or hydration are dangerous. Has this been a consequence of corona-fear? Even anxiety alone can contribute to illness and premature death. The graph referred to seeks only to dramatise coronavirus as the explanation and ignores completely the non-covid related deaths that must have a cause. Can we ignore the rather sinister fact of government provision to this most vulnerable sector was quite the worst. It is almost as if it wanted the fatal consequences to the old and infirm, to support its inflated claims of deadly epidemic. The graph of national coronavirus-related deaths is dramatic but suggests they are now in decline. First what is the impact of testing which shows a similar curve? Could part of the explanation be that as more testing was introduced, so a relationship with deaths from other causes increased? And as with any complicating infectious agent, the most vulnerable are always impacted first, reducing with time. The graph may demonstrate this characteristic rather than one relating to the general population which is otherwise inferred. Little can be deduced from this graph unless it is related to the overall death rate as related to same and earlier years. On both counts until the last few weeks it remained within normal parameters. A spike has belatedly occurred but significantly when alleged Corona related deaths have started to decline. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&sxsrf=ALeKk01n_cofExQxvJE7MBXQWwTbn7ttSQ:1588944657888&source=univ&tbm=isch&q=deaths+england+graph&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1nJqPsKTpAhVBUcAKHe8MAuMQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1248&bih=844#imgrc=8ZCb6uMNp2cvEM It should be noted that Covd-19 deaths followed a fairly parallel and lesser track to that of the 2015 flu epidemic up to the end of March, when it shows an inexplicable and unexpected increase. Strangely this upturn coincides with the Prime Minister's announcement of the draconian "stay at home" policy. It is therefore a moot point whether these measures, rather than reducing deaths, increased them? And whether if they had not been introduced, the infection and death rates would not have followed that of 2015? This begs the serious question yet again as to what extent the the government's lock-down measures, rather than than the virus, have caused the increase? If time and analysis shows the role of Corona was much less than what we were told and the role of the governments measures, or lack of them, was much greater, not only will the damaging economic and social consequences have been for nothing, those that designed and implemented the measures will stand culpable for thousands of premature and unnecessary deaths.
Following extract of BBC article here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
There are now more than 200,000 confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK and more than 30,000 people with the virus have died.
The actual number of cases is estimated to be higher because testing was limited to hospital patients and NHS and care home staff until recently.
There are 531 confirmed cases in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, out of a local population of 568,210
In Cornwall there were 126 coronavirus-related deaths up to the 24 April. In this area 11% of all deaths involved coronavirus between 29 February and 24 April
Note: Cases only include people who have had a positive test for the virus. Not everyone with the virus will have had a test. Deaths include any death where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate. Death data updated weekly, cases updated daily.
Source: UK public health bodies, ONS, NRS and NISRA. Figures last updated 07 May
Recent data from the Office for National Statistics, which has provided the best picture so far of the impact on care homes, suggests that more than a fifth of all coronavirus-related deaths are happening there.
Figures published on Tuesday show that deaths in care homes are continuing to rise. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, care homes have overtaken hospitals as the place where most coronavirus deaths happen.
There is a slight time lag in the figures, which date back to 24 April, because the ONS relies on information from death certificates, rather than positive tests.
Le gouverne-ment mais les chiffres ne mentent pas. On peut mentir sur le nombre de morts réellement à cause du COVID-19. On ne peux pas mentir sur le nombre TOT...
The rule but numbers don't lie. We can lie about the number of dead actually because of the COVID-19. Can't lie about the total number of deaths. Last figures published by INSEE on 1 May 2020: At national level, the total number of deaths recorded in France between 1 March and 20 April: 109 831 deaths in this period in 2020 in France 86 606 in 2019 same period 94 881 in 2018 same period and more in 2017 (https://www.lepoint.fr/societe/2017-plus-de-600-000-deces-en-france-un-record-depuis-l-apres-guerre-15-10-2018-2263064_23.php) So the real figure is for this period of 14 950 plus all causes combined compared to 2018 and even less compared to 2017. We are entitled to strongly doubt the official figure of 26 000 so-called dead-19, the majority of which is no proof of the presence of COVID-19 and preventing the sick of other serious diseases to go to their doctor and to heal themselves (from or significant increase in heart stops reported by ambulance). Only 0,8 % of the deaths in hospital in Italy were healthy, all the others had 1 to 4 pathologies that could lead to the death of these elderly people. Despite this harmful general lockdown, we are very below the big flu outbreaks like the flu in 1969 in France. The death rate in France (dead / Number infected) is between 0,3 % and 0,5 % of the infected, the same as the flu. In the press you find completely false death rate numbers, proof: the Pasteur Institute estimated the number of infected at 4 million 1 week ago when the number of alleged deaths was 20 : 20 000 / 4 000 000= 0,5% Official death figures awarded to COVID-19 worldwide as at 6 May 2020: 247 dead We are far from the biggest recent flu outbreaks that have killed 650 people in the world. (https://www.who.int/fr/news-room/detail/14-12-2017-jusqu-à-650-000-décès-par-an-sont-dus-aux-affections-respiratoires-liées-à-la-grippe-saisonnière) In total, an epidemic that is on its end and even WITHOUT a vaccine (unlike the flu) has currently killed 2 times as much as the 1969 flu and as much as the flu of 2017!
The government already claims that if there had not been a general lockdown there would have been 62 dead (A2 JT). The reality shows that, on the contrary, countries that have NOT done general lockdown (Sweden, Netherlands, South Korea, etc...) have had far fewer deaths per head than France. South Korea, which has not done any general lockdown but massive tests and lockdown only of the infected people, as of 6 May, 255 dead per 50 million people.
