Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Rolling Out Paedophile Enablers To Promote The COVID-19 Vaccine

Wake TF Up Weekly | April 14, 2021

If we live in a society that truly advocates for informed consent, it is paramount that we only take advice from reliable sources. It is also crucial to ensure that those who may be of a nefarious nature, attempting to sway our decisions in a particular direction, are kept at an arm’s length.

For example, you would never take medical advice from a trio of genocidal mass murderers.

Hence, on Monday, when I learned on watching UK Column that Edwina Currie was propagating for vaccine uptake, I took notice. In her video piece, she did the dirty work of her handlers, as instructed, playing her part in the stage show, doing what politicians do best – sowing division.

Referring to those who will decide against being vaccinated, or those who cannot be vaccinated, she exclaimed;

“Exercising their freedom not to have a vaccine? And they’re ‘perfectly healthy’? I don’t want them sitting next to me in theatre. I don’t want them standing next to me at the theatre bar. I don’t want them next to me or anywhere near me, or even on the same carriage on the train. So yea, they can exercise their freedom by staying at home. But millions and millions of us – 15 million pensioners – can’t wait to get out. You know what the main side effect of being vaccinated is, don’t you? And that’s itchy feet. We can go out there and I think there’s an obligation on our government to try and keep us as safe as possible. We are the majority.”

It should first be mentioned that ‘itchy feet’ is not the main side effect of being vaccinated, as Edwina points out. Far more common, as per the data of the UK’s government-approved Yellow Card system are cardiac disorders, of which there have been almost 6000 cases, and psychiatric disorders, of which there have been, give or take a few, 10,000 reports. This is on top of the 92 cases of blindness, the 55 spontaneous abortions, the 6700 blood disorders, 608 anaphylactic reactions and the 2000+ immune system disorders. And of course, there is another known side effect that can be considered a little more serious than mere itchy feet syndrome – namely, death – which has occurred 786 times. Surely worth a mention? Or why let facts spoil a good Big Pharma marketing promotion?

It should also be mentioned to Edwina that the idea the COVID-19 vaccine will keep her safe is erroneous. Recently released documents by the UK government predict that the next wave of COVID-19 infection will see the majority of hospitalisations and deaths ‘dominated’ by people who have already been vaccinated. Straight from the mouths of the corrupt horses that she served for decades. Perhaps, it should be the unvaccinated who are best avoiding people like Edwina if that’s the case. But why mention any of that when the COVID cult you shill for is watching?

In fact, sitting next to Edwina or standing next to her at a bar may not be desirable for a lot of people when we consider her background – and it has nothing to do with her immune system or vaccination status. Having her sat in a separate carriage on a train may indeed be worth contemplating – particularly if the train is bound for a prison. Surely, when one enables the mass rape and rampant sexual abuse of innocent children, there is no alternative destination for them, right?

British MP, Peter Morrison was Private Parliamentary Secretary to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister of the UK and, like a long list of Westminster squad members, he was a notorious paedophile. Morrison would prey on children who were resident in care homes in the North Wales region. Between the years of 1974 and 1990, it is believed that over 600 children were abused in these institutions, of which the MP was a regular visitor. The depraved pervert was on two separate occasions found in the company of young boys in public lavatories by police officers where he would subject them to sexual abuse. In the typically British tradition of governments and law enforcement agencies allowing paedophiles to abuse, without the consequence of punishment, Morrison was not charged by British police, who we now know in 2021 are more suited to harassing and assaulting womenchildren and senior citizens than they are to putting away actual criminals such as paedophiles.

But police officers were not the only people to have turned a blind eye to the crimes of Peter Morrison. The Prime Minister did too. Margaret Thatcher had been warned by her own personal bodyguard, Barry Strevens, who was aware of claims that the MP was involved in orgies of abuse involving children. Instead of taking action to stop the paedophilia and having Morrison investigated and charged, the most powerful woman in the nation did nothing – besides subsequently promoting Morrison to Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party, that is.

As the years went on, victims would begin to come forward testifying to the crimes of Morrison, including a man who claimed to have been plied with alcohol before being raped by him at the age of 14 when he was an occupant of the now infamous Elm Guest House. Then in 2015, an investigation was initiated into a possible link between Morrison and the murder of an 8-year-old boy by the name of Vishal Mehrotra, who died mysteriously in 1981. It wasn’t until 2020 when an independent inquiry was carried out, that it was proven many top government officials were fully aware of these crimes and instead of intervening to prevent further rape and abuse, decided to look the other way.

One of those government officials was Edwina Currie.

In 2002, Edwina wrote and published her autobiography. In it she broached the topic of Morrison’s paedophilia and very clearly stated that she knew he was ‘a noted paederast’, and had heard him admit to this. Edwina would even go so far as to defend him when she opined that the crimes he engaged in would not be illegal today. As your average person will be aware, raping 14-year-old children after setting them drunk is as illegal and immoral today as it was back when Morrison was doing it. So is having sex with boys in public toilets. Not in the eyes of this demented woman though. To this day, she sees nothing wrong with her failure to act, as the lives of children were destroyed at the hands of a political reprobate. When quizzed about this she claimed that she had no proof that Morrison was a rapist, contradicting the claims in her book that she knew perfectly well and that he himself was not shy about talking of his twisted sexual preferences.

5 years, neither Edwina nor any of her colleagues did anything to stop the child abuse that they knew was occurring under their very noses. The ‘open secret’ led to continued sexual exploitation of vulnerable children in care homes. Refusing to act on the information that was present allowed the sick pervert, Morrison, to resume his rape and assault of boys. And now, today, this woman who actively and admittedly enabled a cycle of abuse to take place at the hands of a filthy vulture wants to lecture the public, looking down her big nose at those who value their freedom? A woman who allowed children to be defiled and degraded is virtue signalling to the public, brashly condemning those who don’t obey the dictates of the criminals in Westminster and their slithering, greasy pharmaceutical companions? Is this woman for real?

She should be hanging her head in shame every day of her existence, knowing that she allowed the deranged psychopaths of her institution to rape children. She should be summoned to court for her failure as a human being to prevent the unmentionable acts that were committed on the innocent and locked up for her complicity. Instead, she is publicly carrying out the wishes of a criminal cabal who will stop at nothing to see that humanity is fractured. Instead, she bows to the demands of a cesspit full of reptiles who are determined to create an underclass of citizens. She wilfully, with glee, mocks the people who are ‘exercising their freedom’ – the same people who paid her salary throughout the entirety of her useless political career and received zilch from her in return for their contributions.

Except of course for one thing which no one will ever forget. It was righteous-acting Edwina, who sees herself as such a responsible citizen that she would not dare risk sitting next to an unvaccinated person in a theatre lest she picks up and spreads a virus with a 99.97% survival rate, who introduced one of the most maniacal, evil and disgusting paedophiles/necrophiles in history into the lives of the children of Broadmoor hospital. I am of course talking about Jimmy Saville. It was indeed Vaccina Edwina who rubber-stamped and signed off on Saville’s access to the hospital, giving him unrestricted passage to the patients. As is now well known, Saville would go on to become a serial abuser of children and the tales of his monstrous, unnatural behaviour would leave scars on the minds of those who heard them first hand. It would devastate the lives of those who had to live them.

Saville was an individual Edwina once described as being ‘an amazing man’, stating he ‘has my full confidence’. This, despite the fact that, many civil servants in her circle had been privy to rumours that Saville had a reputation as a sleazebag, with a particular preference for younger girls. Regardless, Saville’s position in the hospital was approved, and with Edwina’s freshly stamped blessings he launched a campaign of perversion on children on an unimaginably horrific scale.

This is Edwina Currie – who views you as a second class citizen if you do not agree to be injected with a dangerous, experimental, unapproved, unnecessary jab that may leave you paralysed, blind or dead.

In my book, The COVID-19 Illusion; A Cacophony of Lies, I show how the COVID-19 pandemic is an illusion designed to bring about a New World Order that will enslave every man, woman and child alive and change the very essence of our society if it is allowed to happen. Those who designed this illusion are deeply disturbed, shameless creatures with zero empathy. They think that they can do or say whatever they like without any accountability. A perfect example of such a person is Edwina Currie. Coldheartedly and devoid of empathy, this psychopath has allowed children to be brutally raped. Callously she enabled paedophilia to be carried out inside what were believed to have been trusted establishment buildings. Edwina has no remorse and does not feel at all guilty about this. She is a soulless narcissist; unfeeling and uncompassionate. Yet, she believes that, if you chose not to be vaccinated, it is you who is unworthy and it is you who society should shun. Not her.

This is how detached from reality these people are. They are swimming in a sea of malevolence, helplessly corrupted to the core. They are the people who spit on the freedoms that were earned over centuries of battle by men and women with dignity and pride. They want to infect that freedom with their poisonous Communitarianism, which will benefit them in their Ivory Towers as the rest of humanity suffers. If you do indeed let them, they will succeed. Whether you are vaccinated or unvaccinated, people like Edwina Currie are a threat to your existence and a stain on your contentment and happiness. They are obsessively enabling the psychopathic leeches above them, as they destroy Western values. Just like Edwina sided with the predators who stalked Broadmoor and the North Wales children’s homes, she is now siding with the sinister forces that want to create hell on earth for you and your family. She will attempt to do this by turning you against your fellow human being. She will try to convince you that those who are not beholden to illegal government dictates are dangerous and dirty. She will try to brainwash you into believing this garbage, as she demonizes what she thinks is the minority and boasts of being part of the majority – exactly like the Nazis did in the 1930s.

Crazed and deranged people like Edwina Currie, who turn their backs on the vulnerable when they are being abused, are only relevant when people are divided.

Unite. Don’t allow her to be relevant.

April 14, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | Leave a comment

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Manufacturing the Crisis

By Simon Elmer | Architects for Social Housing | January 27, 2021

It’s official. The UK now has the ‘highest COVID death-rate in the world’ [January 27th – Ed]. To use a phrase repeatedly employed by our Government throughout this crisis to describe the new technologies and programmes of the UK biosecurity state, our national version of the global coronavirus pandemic is ‘world-beating’.

In the UK, with only the 6th largest economy in the world, we’ve managed to beat even the epidemically obese USA, which as in most things leads the world in ‘COVID-19 deaths’, as well as the systemically impoverished Peru, which at one time combined the 6th strictest lockdown restrictions in the world with the highest mortality rate. However, although UK’s new pre-eminence has been headline-news in the mainstream media and retweeted across social media, a quick check shows that this only refers to the seven-day average of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the week before it was reported.

In COVID-19 deaths per million of the population the UK (on 1,471 on 27 January) is still lagging behind Gibraltar (2,048), San Marino (1,913), Belgium (1,797), Slovenia (1,647) and the Czech Republic (1,473), and is closely followed by Italy (1,431) — although, if it’s any consolation to the COVID-faithful, we have a higher number of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ than all these countries.

I make no apology for writing flippantly about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, because it’s in precisely this manner that these deaths are being used by our governments and media, and I want to begin to challenge their cynical manipulation of the statistics by showing how easy it is to manufacture a ‘news story’. As always — although we appear to have forgotten it along with everything else we knew about the world in which we live — the old adage about ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’ holds true to this greatest of all lies, the manufacturing of the coronavirus crisis.

What I want to do in this article, in contrast, is look at the figures for the mortality rates, places and causes of death in England in 2020 that are slowly being published by the Office for National Statistics in 2021, and discuss what they can tell us about what really happened last year. The figures aren’t conclusive, as the changes to disease taxonomy, protocols for filling in death certificates, criteria for recording deaths, and the flawed testing programme mean we’ll never know how many people actually died from COVID-19 in the UK in 2020; but if we analyse these figures accurately and in their context, it is possible to see some way through the deception to the reality they conceal.

I have written about this in considerable detail in Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK, and if you are not familiar with these changes you can read about them there. But let’s start with the problem of taxonomy. On 5 March, at a time when the UK had attributed 1 death to COVID-19 and identified 108 ‘cases’ of SARS-CoV-2, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made The Health Protection (Notification) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 into law.

This first amendment, which would not require resolution by Parliament for 40 days from when it returned from its extended recess on 21 April, added COVID-19 and SARs-CoV-2 to the list of, respectively ‘notifiable’ diseases and ‘causative agents’. Under this change to legislation, medical practitioners have a statutory duty to record COVID-19 on a death certificate — as they do not, for example, with pneumonia, the primary cause of death from respiratory diseases.

On top of these changes, there’s the problem of the criteria for the deceased to be recorded as a ‘COVID-19 death’. On 31 March, the Office for National Statistics announced that, in order for a death to be included in its records of ‘COVID-19 deaths’, the disease merely has to be ‘mentioned’ anywhere on the death certificate, without it being ‘the main cause of death’. This includes as a ‘contributing’ factor when ‘combined with other health conditions’, or when a doctor has diagnosed a ‘possible’ case of COVID-19 based on ‘relevant symptoms’ but with no test for SARs-CoV-2 having been conducted, or when the deceased tested positive for SARs-CoV-2 but a post mortem hasn’t established the actual cause of death.

As if this weren’t enough to increase the official tally of deaths attributed to COVID-19 far beyond the numbers of UK citizens that actually died of the disease, there’s the additional problem of the changes to how death certificates record the cause of death. On 20 April, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued the ‘International guidelines for certification and classification (coding) of COVID-19 as cause of death’.

These instructed medical practitioners that, if COVID-19 is the ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ or ‘assumed’ cause of death, it must always be recorded, in Part 1 of the death certificate, as the ‘underlying cause’ of death. In contrast, co-morbidities such as cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes or chronic respiratory infections other than COVID-19 should only be recorded in Part 2 of the death certificate as a ‘contributing’ cause.

To clear up any confusion this may cause to a doctor filling out the death certificate of an 80-year-old patient who has died of cancer and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 post mortem, the WHO instructed medical professionals: ‘Always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not.’

There were other changes to how ‘COVID-19 deaths’ are recorded in the UK, implemented by the National Health ServicePublic Health England and the Care Quality Commission, all of which contributed to the inaccuracy of the picture being painted by the Government of the threat of COVID-19; but the three changes above laid the foundation for the crisis. The tool most responsible for its manufacture, however, is the already infamous reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Again, I have written about this at greater length in Part 2 of The Betrayal of the Clerks: UK Intellectuals in the Service of the Biosecurity State and in the addendum to Bowling for Pfizer: Who’s Behind the BioNTech Vaccine?; but, briefly, on 17 January, as part of its recommended protocols for RT-PCR tests, the World Health Organisation published the Corman-Drosten paper, ‘Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR’.

Among the numerous flaws in this catastrophically destructive paper, which is being challenged in the German courts, the authors recommended using 45 cycles of thermal amplification of swab samples for SARS-CoV-2, which, as numerous subsequent studies have confirmed, is many times higher than the number of cycles (preferably less than 30) at which the specific coronavirus can be identified, infectious virus reliably detected, or its replication into a disease confirmed.

These protocols were adopted and repeated across the world, including in the UK. On 16 March, the National Health Service, in its ‘Guidance and standard operating procedure: COVID-19 virus testing in NHS laboratories’, recommended a cycle threshold of 45, with anything below 40 to be regarded as a ‘confirmed’ positive. On 28 September, it was estimated that, at even 35 cycles of amplification, 97 per cent of the positives in an RT-PCR test are false.

Yet, as late as October 2020, in ‘Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: A guide for health protection teams’, Public Health England continued to advise those administering the tests in this country that ‘a typical RT-PCR assay will have a maximum of 40 thermal cycles’, while also conceding that such tests are ‘not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present’.

Finally, there is the medically inaccurate equation, which appears to have originated with the media — and especially the site Worldometer — of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 with a ‘case’ of COVID-19. This ignores what Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and one of the most referenced scientists in German history, in an open letter to the German Chancellor published on 26 March, described as the ‘traditional distinction’ in infectiology between infection with a virus and its replication into a disease identified by its clinical symptoms and not by a fatally flawed test.

Despite this, this fundamentally flawed equation has been accepted without question, adopted and repeated without commentary by every medical body in the UK, and used by the Government to fabricate the vast number of so-called ‘cases’ of COVID-19 on which the biosecurity state has been built with nothing more than traces of a dead virus.

Give these five changes, 1) to disease taxonomy, 2) to the criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, 3) to identifying the underlying cause of death on a death certificate, 4) to identifying infection with SARS-CoV-2, and 5) to identifying the clinical presence of COVID-19 — all but one of which were in place before the end of March, 2020 — how do we establish how many people actually died of COVID-19 in the UK or, to the contrary, how many deaths from cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes, influenza and the other primary causes of death in the UK have been incorrectly diagnosed and/or recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’?

We can start by looking at the other pre-existing health conditions of the tens of thousands of deceased whose deaths, under the changes made, were attributed to COVID-19. In July 2020, the Office for National Statistics published data on ‘Pre-existing conditions of people who died with COVID-19’.

To qualify as such, a pre-existing health condition must appear on the death certificate either below COVID-19 in Part 1, and therefore in the causal chain leading to death, or in Part 2, and therefore as a contributing cause to death, if COVID-19 is mentioned in Part 1. Alternatively, if COVID-19 is mentioned in Part 2 of the death certificate, a pre-existing health condition must appear as the underlying cause of death in Part 1.

Following these definitions, the ONS reported that, of the 50,335 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in England and Wales between March and June 2020, 45,859, 91.1 per cent, had at least one pre-existing health condition, with a mean average of 2.1 conditions for those aged 0 to 69 years of age and 2.3 for those aged 70 years and over.

The accompanying dataset recorded that, in the 4 months between March and June 2020, the most common ‘main’ pre-existing health condition recorded on death certificates in England and Wales was dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, with 12,869 deaths constituting 25.6 per cent of all deaths attributed to COVID-19.

By a ‘main’ pre-existing condition the ONS means the condition that is most likely to cause death in the absence of COVID-19. How they derive this is complicated, and I won’t go into it here; but they take their lead from the World Health Organisation’s rules for identifying the ‘underlying cause’ of death, which as we have seen have been changed to ensure that COVID-19 always appears on death certificates in this category, and in doing so excludes everything appearing above Part 1.

After dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, ischaemic heart diseases — meaning those causing stroke through a blood clot or other blockage — were the next most common, with 5,002 death certificates recording it as the ‘main pre-existing health condition’ constituting 9.9 per cent of all deaths attributed to COVID-19. This was followed by influenza and pneumonia, which were present as the main condition on 4,582 death certificates.

Of the 50,335 deaths attributed to COVID-19, 4,476 had no main pre-existing health condition on the death certificate, just 8.9 per cent of the total.

But that’s not all. When recording all pre-existing health conditions, their presence on the death certificates of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ is even higher, with 13,840 deaths attributed to COVID-19 having dementia and Alzheimer’s disease also listed, 11,029 deaths having influenza and pneumonia, and 9,820 having diabetes.

Unfortunately — and extraordinarily, given that we’re supposed to be in the middle of an ‘unprecedented’ epidemic threatening the safety of the UK public — since July no other data on the pre-existing health conditions, main and common, of people whose deaths have been officially attributed to COVID-19 has been published by the Office for National Statistics.

I’ve written to the ONS to ask when they will update their records, and they responded that they are hoping to do so in February 2021. Why they stopped doing so in July I will leave to you to judge; but when these figures are published I shall add them to this article.

Until then, the National Health Service records of ‘COVID-19 deaths by age-group and pre-existing condition’ show that, as of 20 January, 2021 — so three weeks into the new year — 61,414 of the 64,111 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 (the actual record says ‘tested positive for COVID-19’, which is medically meaningless), over 95 per cent of the total, had at least one pre-existing health condition. Of the remaining 2,697 in which a pre-existing health condition didn’t appear on their death certificate, just 486 were under 60 years of age in 11 months of this ‘epidemic’.

*********************************************

It’s official. The UK now has the ‘highest COVID death-rate in the world’. To use a phrase repeatedly employed by our Government throughout this crisis to describe the new technologies and programmes of the UK biosecurity state, our national version of the global coronavirus pandemic is ‘world-beating’. In the UK, with only the 6th largest economy in the world, we’ve managed to beat even the epidemically obese USA, which as in most things leads the world in ‘COVID-19 deaths’, as well as the systemically impoverished Peru, which at one time combined the 6th strictest lockdown restrictions in the world with the highest mortality rate. However, although UK’s new pre-eminence has been headline-news in the mainstream media and retweeted across social media, a quick check shows that this only refers to the seven-day average of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the week before it was reported. In COVID-19 deaths per million of the population the UK (on 1,471 on 27 January) is still lagging behind Gibraltar (2,048), San Marino (1,913), Belgium (1,797), Slovenia (1,647) and the Czech Republic (1,473), and is closely followed by Italy (1,431) — although, if it’s any consolation to the COVID-faithful, we have a higher number of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ than all these countries.

I make no apology for writing flippantly about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, because it’s in precisely this manner that these deaths are being used by our governments and media, and I want to begin to challenge their cynical manipulation of the statistics by showing how easy it is to manufacture a ‘news story’. As always — although we appear to have forgotten it along with everything else we knew about the world in which we live — the old adage about ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’ holds true to this greatest of all lies, the manufacturing of the coronavirus crisis. What I want to do in this article, in contrast, is look at the figures for the mortality rates, places and causes of death in England in 2020 that are slowly being published by the Office for National Statistics in 2021, and discuss what they can tell us about what really happened last year. The figures aren’t conclusive, as the changes to disease taxonomy, protocols for filling in death certificates, criteria for recording deaths, and the flawed testing programme mean we’ll never know how many people actually died from COVID-19 in the UK in 2020; but if we analyse these figures accurately and in their context, it is possible to see some way through the deception to the reality they conceal.

1. Laying the Foundations

I have written about this in considerable detail in Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK, and if you are not familiar with these changes you can read about them there. But let’s start with the problem of taxonomy. On 5 March, at a time when the UK had attributed 1 death to COVID-19 and identified 108 ‘cases’ of SARS-CoV-2, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made The Health Protection (Notification) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 into law. This first amendment, which would not require resolution by Parliament for 40 days from when it returned from its extended recess on 21 April, added COVID-19 and SARs-CoV-2 to the list of, respectively ‘notifiable’ diseases and ‘causative agents’. Under this change to legislation, medical practitioners have a statutory duty to record COVID-19 on a death certificate — as they do not, for example, with pneumonia, the primary cause of death from respiratory diseases.

On top of these changes, there’s the problem of the criteria for the deceased to be recorded as a ‘COVID-19 death’. On 31 March, the Office for National Statistics announced that, in order for a death to be included in its records of ‘COVID-19 deaths’, the disease merely has to be ‘mentioned’ anywhere on the death certificate, without it being ‘the main cause of death’. This includes as a ‘contributing’ factor when ‘combined with other health conditions’, or when a doctor has diagnosed a ‘possible’ case of COVID-19 based on ‘relevant symptoms’ but with no test for SARs-CoV-2 having been conducted, or when the deceased tested positive for SARs-CoV-2 but a post mortem hasn’t established the actual cause of death.

As if this weren’t enough to increase the official tally of deaths attributed to COVID-19 far beyond the numbers of UK citizens that actually died of the disease, there’s the additional problem of the changes to how death certificates record the cause of death. On 20 April, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued the ‘International guidelines for certification and classification (coding) of COVID-19 as cause of death’. These instructed medical practitioners that, if COVID-19 is the ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ or ‘assumed’ cause of death, it must always be recorded, in Part 1 of the death certificate, as the ‘underlying cause’ of death. In contrast, co-morbidities such as cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes or chronic respiratory infections other than COVID-19 should only be recorded in Part 2 of the death certificate as a ‘contributing’ cause. To clear up any confusion this may cause to a doctor filling out the death certificate of an 80-year-old patient who has died of cancer and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 post mortem, the WHO instructed medical professionals: ‘Always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not.’

There were other changes to how ‘COVID-19 deaths’ are recorded in the UK, implemented by the National Health ServicePublic Health England and the Care Quality Commission, all of which contributed to the inaccuracy of the picture being painted by the Government of the threat of COVID-19; but the three changes above laid the foundation for the crisis. The tool most responsible for its manufacture, however, is the already infamous reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Again, I have written about this at greater length in Part 2 of The Betrayal of the Clerks: UK Intellectuals in the Service of the Biosecurity State and in the addendum to Bowling for Pfizer: Who’s Behind the BioNTech Vaccine?; but, briefly, on 17 January, as part of its recommended protocols for RT-PCR tests, the World Health Organisation published the Corman-Drosten paper, ‘Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR’. Among the numerous flaws in this catastrophically destructive paper, which is being challenged in the German courts, the authors recommended using 45 cycles of thermal amplification of swab samples for SARS-CoV-2, which, as numerous subsequent studies have confirmed, is many times higher than the number of cycles (preferably less than 30) at which the specific coronavirus can be identified, infectious virus reliably detected, or its replication into a disease confirmed.

These protocols were adopted and repeated across the world, including in the UK. On 16 March, the National Health Service, in its ‘Guidance and standard operating procedure: COVID-19 virus testing in NHS laboratories’, recommended a cycle threshold of 45, with anything below 40 to be regarded as a ‘confirmed’ positive. On 28 September, it was estimated that, at even 35 cycles of amplification, 97 per cent of the positives in an RT-PCR test are false. Yet, as late as October 2020, in ‘Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: A guide for health protection teams’, Public Health England continued to advise those administering the tests in this country that ‘a typical RT-PCR assay will have a maximum of 40 thermal cycles’, while also conceding that such tests are ‘not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present’.

Finally, there is the medically inaccurate equation, which appears to have originated with the media — and especially the site Worldometer — of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 with a ‘case’ of COVID-19. This ignores what Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and one of the most referenced scientists in German history, in an open letter to the German Chancellor published on 26 March, described as the ‘traditional distinction’ in infectiology between infection with a virus and its replication into a disease identified by its clinical symptoms and not by a fatally flawed test. Despite this, this fundamentally flawed equation has been accepted without question, adopted and repeated without commentary by every medical body in the UK, and used by the Government to fabricate the vast number of so-called ‘cases’ of COVID-19 on which the biosecurity state has been built with nothing more than traces of a dead virus.

Give these five changes, 1) to disease taxonomy, 2) to the criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, 3) to identifying the underlying cause of death on a death certificate, 4) to identifying infection with SARS-CoV-2, and 5) to identifying the clinical presence of COVID-19 — all but one of which were in place before the end of March, 2020 — how do we establish how many people actually died of COVID-19 in the UK or, to the contrary, how many deaths from cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes, influenza and the other primary causes of death in the UK have been incorrectly diagnosed and/or recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’?

2. Competing Causes of Death

We can start by looking at the other pre-existing health conditions of the tens of thousands of deceased whose deaths, under the changes made, were attributed to COVID-19. In July 2020, the Office for National Statistics published data on ‘Pre-existing conditions of people who died with COVID-19’. To qualify as such, a pre-existing health condition must appear on the death certificate either below COVID-19 in Part 1, and therefore in the causal chain leading to death, or in Part 2, and therefore as a contributing cause to death, if COVID-19 is mentioned in Part 1. Alternatively, if COVID-19 is mentioned in Part 2 of the death certificate, a pre-existing health condition must appear as the underlying cause of death in Part 1.

Following these definitions, the ONS reported that, of the 50,335 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in England and Wales between March and June 2020, 45,859, 91.1 per cent, had at least one pre-existing health condition, with a mean average of 2.1 conditions for those aged 0 to 69 years of age and 2.3 for those aged 70 years and over. The accompanying dataset recorded that, in the 4 months between March and June 2020, the most common ‘main’ pre-existing health condition recorded on death certificates in England and Wales was dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, with 12,869 deaths constituting 25.6 per cent of all deaths attributed to COVID-19.

By a ‘main’ pre-existing condition the ONS means the condition that is most likely to cause death in the absence of COVID-19. How they derive this is complicated, and I won’t go into it here; but they take their lead from the World Health Organisation’s rules for identifying the ‘underlying cause’ of death, which as we have seen have been changed to ensure that COVID-19 always appears on death certificates in this category, and in doing so excludes everything appearing above Part 1.

After dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, ischaemic heart diseases — meaning those causing stroke through a blood clot or other blockage — were the next most common, with 5,002 death certificates recording it as the ‘main pre-existing health condition’ constituting 9.9 per cent of all deaths attributed to COVID-19. This was followed by influenza and pneumonia, which were present as the main condition on 4,582 death certificates. Of the 50,335 deaths attributed to COVID-19, 4,476 had no main pre-existing health condition on the death certificate, just 8.9 per cent of the total.

But that’s not all. When recording all pre-existing health conditions, their presence on the death certificates of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ is even higher, with 13,840 deaths attributed to COVID-19 having dementia and Alzheimer’s disease also listed, 11,029 deaths having influenza and pneumonia, and 9,820 having diabetes.

Unfortunately — and extraordinarily, given that we’re supposed to be in the middle of an ‘unprecedented’ epidemic threatening the safety of the UK public — since July no other data on the pre-existing health conditions, main and common, of people whose deaths have been officially attributed to COVID-19 has been published by the Office for National Statistics. I’ve written to the ONS to ask when they will update their records, and they responded that they are hoping to do so in February 2021. Why they stopped doing so in July I will leave to you to judge; but when these figures are published I shall add them to this article.

Until then, the National Health Service records of ‘COVID-19 deaths by age-group and pre-existing condition’ show that, as of 20 January, 2021 — so three weeks into the new year — 61,414 of the 64,111 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 (the actual record says ‘tested positive for COVID-19’, which is medically meaningless), over 95 per cent of the total, had at least one pre-existing health condition. Of the remaining 2,697 in which a pre-existing health condition didn’t appear on their death certificate, just 486 were under 60 years of age in 11 months of this ‘epidemic’.

Of those with at least one pre-existing health condition, 26 per cent had diabetes, 17 per cent had dementia, another 17 per cent had chronic kidney disease, 16 per cent had chronic pulmonary disease, 13 per cent had heart disease, and 72 per cent of them had some other health condition. As we have seen, most of the deceased had more than one pre-existing health condition.

What these figures show irrefutably is that less than 5 per cent of the deceased whose deaths in hospital have been attributed to COVID-19 did not have at least one, and usually two or more, health conditions sufficiently life-threatening to appear even on death certificates and records changed to exaggerate the numbers of deaths actually caused by COVID-19. Based on the ONS figures for all deaths attributed to COVID-19 during the first wave of deaths wherever the deceased died, that figure rises to 9 per cent. Together, what these statistics very strongly suggest is that, without those changes to certification and recording, a large percentage of these deaths would not be attributed to COVID-19 but to the primary causes of death in the UK that appear as the ‘contributing cause’ on their death certificates and the ‘pre-existing condition’ in the official records.

3. Evidence for Lockdown Deaths

In addition to this evidence of systemic misdiagnosis and inaccurate recording of deaths in 2020, we can also look at the reports and predictions published by various bodies monitoring medical treatment, health and mortality in the UK. These both record and predict the increase in deaths in 2020 not attributed to COVID-19 but resulting from the withdrawal and cancellation of medical diagnosis, treatment and care as a result of the reprioritising of the NHS, lockdown restrictions, and the terrorism of the UK population by the Government and media. The figures they report are extraordinary, and cannot easily be explained away.

In March 2020, the National Health Service made the decision to free up 30,000 of its 100,000 hospital beds for general and acute care, postpone all non-urgent elective operations, and discharge all hospital inpatients who were medically fit to leave. This resulted in up to 25,000 hospital patients being sent into care homes.

In April 2020, the National Health Service reported a total of 916,581 attendances at Accident and Emergency in England that month, compared with 2,112,165 in the same month the previous year, a reduction of 57 per cent; and 326,581 emergency admissions, compared with 535,226 in 2019, a reduction of 39 per cent.

In May 2020, the Office for National Statistics reported that, in the previous month, deaths from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease had increased above the average by 9,429 in England and 462 in Wales. This was 83 per cent higher than usual in England and 54 per cent higher in Wales, with charities reporting that a reduction in essential medical care and family visits was responsible.

In June 2020 a survey of 128 care homes by the Alzheimer’s Society showed that 79 per cent reported a lack of social contact was causing a deterioration in the health and well-being of residents with dementia, and 75 per cent reported General Practitioners had been reluctant to visit residents.

In July 2020, the Office for National Statistics reported that there were 16,000 excess deaths in March and April not attributed to COVID-19 as a result of changes to emergency care and adult social care under lockdown. The ONS estimated a further 26,000 excess deaths over the rest of 2020 from the same causes, and a further 1,400 excess deaths resulting from changes to primary and community care, with cancer diagnoses, GP referrals and emergency representations stopped or reduced. The same month, the Nursing Times reported that, between March and May, deaths from diabetes at home and in care homes had risen by 47 per cent.

In August 2020, the Institute of Cancer Research reported that a delay of 3 months across all 94,912 patients who were due to have surgery to remove their cancer over the course of the year would lead to an additional 4,755 deaths. Taking into account the length of time that patients are expected to live after their surgery, this delay would amount to 92,214 years of life lost. The report estimated that surgery for cancer affords, on average, 18.1 years of life per patient, of which on average 1 year is lost for a 3-month delay, and 2.2 years are lost with a 6-month delay.

In September 2020, Cancer Research UK reported that, in the 6 months since lockdown, cancer screening was cancelled for 3.2 million people, and that between March and July there was a 39 per cent drop in the seven key diagnostic tests for cancer in England. It also estimated that, between April and August, around 350,000 fewer people than normal in the UK were referred with suspected cancer symptoms.

In October 2020, the Office for National Statistics reported that, between March and September, there were 2,095 excess deaths at home from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease above the 5-year average for England and Wales, an increase of 79.3 per cent. Also in October, the British Heart Foundation reported that, between March and September 2020, there were more than 26,000 excess deaths in private homes across England and Wales, of which  there was an increase of 25.9 per cent in deaths from heart disease in England and of 22.7 per cent in Wales.

In November 2020, the British Medical Journal reported that even a month’s delay in cancer surgery increases the risk of death by 6-13 per cent across all common forms of cancer, with a 3-month delay increasing the risk by approximately 25 per cent, rising to 44 per cent for treatments like bowel cancer chemotherapy.

In December 2020, the National Health Service reported that, in the 10 months since March, attendances at Accident and Emergency in hospitals in England were down by 6,887,183 from the same 10 months in 2019, a 32 per cent reduction; and admissions to A&E were down by 1,052,807, a 20 per cent reduction. In comparison, January and February of 2020 had seen almost exactly the same in both, with just 16,000 fewer attendances and 200 more admissions. These figures include the changes to records made in August, when the figures for A&E began to include booked attendances.

In January 2021, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, in a study of 66 UK hospitals, reported that, during the first lockdown, daily admissions for myocardial infarction or heart attack (the blue line in the table below) and heart failure (red line) decreased by 54 per cent. Admissions recovered to 95 percent of pre-lockdown levels by June; then fell again between October and November to 41 per cent for heart failure and 34 per cent for heart attacks. In both instances, there was a clear correlation between lockdown and reduction in medical care.

That this evidence of the devastating effects of lockdown on the health and lives of the UK population, and in particular the elderly and frail, should be dismissed by medical professionals unreservedly promoting lockdown in mainstream and social media is concerning, to say the least. But it also shows that emotive reports by doctors apparently addicted to their new-found stardom on Twitter are no basis to policies which are not only having a devastating impact on the lives of nearly 68 million people but, according to these reports, have already caused the deaths of tens of thousands of UK citizens and will continue to kill tens of thousands more, for as long as these restrictions are imposed by the Government, enforced by the police and complied with by the public.

4. Recovering the Dead

But — comes the response from the COVID-faithful — if these reports and predictions are accurate, wouldn’t the huge increase in deaths show up at the end of the year on the records of overall mortality? Well, yes and no. Let’s take a look. In January 2021, the Office for National Statistics published ‘Deaths registered by place of occurrence’, in which it records, in the accompanying dataset, the following deaths between 7 March, 2020 (week 11 of the year) and 1 January, 2021 (week 53).

The first statistic that leaps out of these tables is the 40,114 excess deaths over the 5-year average that occurred in private homes in the last 43 weeks of 2020, only 3,881 of which were attributed to COVID-19. Even with all the distortions to how these figures have been produced, this still leaves 36,233 excess ‘non-COVID’ deaths at home. In addition, there were 26,202 excess deaths in care homes over the same period. Here, however, 20,574 were attributed to COVID-19, largely on the say-so of the private companies running the homes and without a corroborating medical diagnosis, leaving 5,628 excess deaths. That’s a total of 41,861 deaths above the 5-year average unaccounted for. Surely, here is the proof of the human cost of lockdown?

Unfortunately not. If we look at the 207,049 deaths in hospital over the same period, there were 13,692 excess; but 54,688 of these deaths were attributed to COVID-19. That leaves a total of 152,361 deaths attributed to causes other than COVID-19, which is 40,996 fewer than the 5-year average. Finally, 33,694 deaths occurred in ‘other’ places than in hospital, at home or in care homes over the same period, of which 1,687 were attributed to COVID-19. That leaves 32,007 deaths from causes other than COVID-19, which is 2,028 fewer than the 5-year average of 34,035. In total, therefore, between 7 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021, there were 43,024 fewer deaths not attributed to COVID-19 in hospitals and places other than private homes or care homes. That’s only 1,163 more than the 41,861 excess deaths at home and in care homes not attributed to COVID-19.

The picture these figures paint is of slightly fewer people dying outside, as one would expect in a nation under lockdown, and a hugely reduced number of people dying in hospitals, which is also consistent with the withdrawal and reduction of hospital care and the fear of attending hospital created by the Government and media. But according to these statistics, roughly the same number of people appear to have died in 2020 from causes other than COVID-19, but they did so at home, primarily, and in slightly fewer numbers in care homes.

However, this conclusion relies on a number of suppositions. The first is that the 41,861 people above the 5-year average who died outside of hospital from something other than COVID-19, which is almost equalled by the 40,996 fewer deaths inside hospital, would not have lived had they had hospital treatment. However, it’s reasonable to assume that the huge increase in the deaths at home and in care homes from causes other than COVID-19 wouldn’t have been anywhere near as high if the deceased had had access to hospital care, and not all of them would have simply died in hospital anyway, and in doing so neatly increased the number of hospital deaths to the 5-year average. If not, we might wonder what the purpose of hospital treatment is other than palliative care. The figures quoted by the Institute of Cancer Research indicate the contrary, that early diagnosis and treatment make a huge difference to the survival rates of patients; and one would expect similar reduction in the number of deaths for those suffering from heart disease, dementia and other life-threatening disease who died at home if they could have accessed hospital care.

The second supposition, of course, is the accuracy of the diagnoses of COVID-19 as the cause of death, the protocol for designating COVID-19 as the ‘underlying cause’ on death certificates, and the criteria for recording a ‘COVID-19 death’ on the ONS records. In particular, in April 2020, the Care Quality Commission, the regulator of health and social care in England, introduced what it called a ‘new way’ to understand whether COVID-19 was ‘involved in the death’ of someone in a care home. This merely requires a statement from the care home provider that COVID-19 was ‘suspected’ as the cause of death, and which ‘may or may not’ correspond to a medical diagnosis, a positive RT-PCR test result for SARs-CoV-2, or even be reflected in the death certificate. It’s by this criteria that 20,574 deaths in care homes were attributed to COVID-19 in 2020.

Given the deliberately distorted and systemically flawed procedures through which these figures have been compiled, they remain, overall, inconclusive in supporting the thesis that lockdown has caused tens of thousands of deaths from causes other than COVID-19. Nonetheless, they do suggest — although without providing the proof — that the increases in deaths from cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes and the other main causes of death in the UK predicted by the various monitoring bodies have been misattributed to COVID-19. But given that the deceased are now gone, and their falsified death certificates are all we have left of the causes of their deaths, how can we find evidence for the manufacture of tens of thousands of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ from their cremated and buried bodies? This is the task of reparation and remembrance with which any true account of 2020 must begin if it is to recover the truth about their deaths from the lies in which they have been shrouded.

5. Overall Mortality in the ‘Epidemic’

On 12 January, the Head of Mortality Analysis at the Office for National Statistics revealed that mortality rate in the UK in 2020, during a civilisation-threatening pandemic necessitating our transition into a biosecurity state, had been the worst since . . . 2008. This is based on what the ONS calls its ‘age-standardised mortality rates’, which take account of both increases in population numbers and the ageing of the population, both of which increase the actual number of deaths. Just as we can’t compare the number of deaths in the UK to those in Germany or the USA to get an accurate comparison of their mortality rates, so we have to adjust to increases in the UK population. In 2008, when the population of England and Wales was 54.84 million, there were 509,090 deaths, compared with 608,002 deaths in 2020, nearly 100,000 more, when the population is 59.83 million, 5 million more. But the overall ageing of the UK population also means that more people can be expected to die in any given year. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of people in the UK aged 65 years and over increased by 22.9 per cent to 12.4 million; the number of people aged 70 years and over increased by 24.7 per cent to 9 million; and the number of people aged 85 years and over increased by 23 per cent to 1.6 million. Taking both these increases into the calculation produces a far more accurate comparison of overall mortality rates between different years.

Fortunately, following a freedom of information request, on 12 January the Office for National Statistics published a report on ‘Annual number of deaths, crude and age-standardised  mortality rates, deaths registered in England and Wales, 1838 to 2019 (final) and 2020 (provisional)’. This shows that the age-standardised mortality rate in 2020 of 1,043.5 deaths per 100,000 of the population was surpassed not only in 2008 (with 1,091.9 deaths per 100,000), but also in 2007 (1,091.8), in 2006 (1,104.3), in 2005 (1,043.8), 2004 (1,163.0), 2003 (1,232.1), 2002 (1,231.3), 2001 (1,236.2) and 2000 (1,266.4). Unfortunately, the calculation of age-standardised mortality rates for England and Wales only goes back to 1942; but every year between then and 2008 had a higher mortality rate than 2020. Even by the measure of the ‘crude mortality rate’ not adjusted for an ageing population, no year before 2004 had a lower mortality rate than 2020. In fact, over the last 79 years, 2020 has the 12th lowest mortality rate.

   

It’s no surprise that mortality rates throughout 2020 have been consistently compared to the average over the last five years, when those years, as the ONS states, have seen ‘historically low mortality rates’, with 2019 having the lowest rate ever recorded. 2020 has been a moderately worse-than-usual year compared to mortality rates over the last decade, but it is by no definition of the term ‘unprecedented’, as we are constantly told by the Government, its medical spokesmen and the media. In reality — rather than in the media — when compared to the history of the UK, at least since the Second World War, the bar-chart we’ve made from the ONS figures shows that the year 2020 had a historically low mortality rate.

6. What Happened to the Excess Deaths?

So where does that leave the COVID-19 ‘epidemic’? The calculation of 2020’s historically low mortality rate was based on the statistics published by the Office for National Statistics this month on the ‘Provisional leading causes of death for 2020’. In the accompanying datasets for the ‘Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales’, Table 11a shows the age-standardised mortality rate for selected leading causes of death in England between 1 January and 31 December 2020, compared to the 5-year average between 2015 and 2019.

Unsurprisingly, in a year in which 25,000 patients were evicted from NHS hospitals into care homes in which 70 per cent of residents suffer from dementia or severe memory problems, and where the Alzheimer’s Society reported they were denied medical care and family visits under lockdown restrictions, deaths from these diseases in England in 2020 were 4,132 above the five-year average of 61,928 deaths.

Yet, incredibly, in a year in which cancer screening was cancelled for 3.2 million people in the 6 months up to September 2020, and surgery for 94,912 patients was postponed or cancelled, deaths from lung and throat cancer were down 1,537 from the 5-year average of 28,108 deaths.

Just as incredibly, although the British Heart Foundation reported that, between March and September 2020, deaths at home from heart disease were up 25.9 per cent in England due to lockdown restrictions, deaths from heart disease in 2020 were 1,450 below the 5-year average of 53,429 deaths.

More incredibly, deaths from chronic lower respiratory diseases were down by 2,764 from the 5-year average of 29,681, a 9 per cent reduction.

And even more incredibly, deaths from cerebrovascular diseases, which cause strokes, aneurysms and haemorrhages, were down by 2,263 deaths from the 5-year average of 29,943, a fall of 13.2 per cent.

Most incredibly of all, there were 7,313 fewer deaths from influenza and pneumonia in 2020 than the 5-year average of 25,969 deaths, a 28 per cent reduction.

I use the word ‘incredible’ in its proper sense to describe these figures, which are not credible as accurate records of the effects of withdrawing and reducing healthcare to nearly 60 million people for 10 months. Given the deliberate inaccuracy of the criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, largely dependent upon a positive test using an RT-PCR test at thresholds where it can identify so-called ‘cases’ of COVID-19 from fragments of dead coronavirus, it is almost impossible that these thousands of ‘lost’ deaths, and the thousands more caused by lockdown, have not been misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly recorded as ‘COVID-deaths’. But how do we corroborate this thesis with facts?

On 14 January, Public Health England published its analysis of ONS figures on deaths over a shorter timeframe, between 21 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021, the period under which England has been under various degrees of lockdown restrictions. These show that, even with the WHO’s instructions to medical practitioners that COVID-19 must always be listed as the ‘underlying cause’ of death, a total of 7,511 excess deaths in which other health conditions were listed as such were recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’.

As can be seen, deaths from heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, other circulatory diseases, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, urinary diseases, liver diseases, and from causes other than COVID-19, numbered 11,013 over the 5-year average; yet 5,057 of these were listed as ‘COVID-deaths’. Even when deaths from the underlying cause were below the 5-year average, as they were for cancer, acute respiratory infections, chronic lower respiratory diseases, other respiratory diseases and Parkinson’s disease, 2,454 deaths were still registered as ‘COVID-19 deaths’.

Nearly 75 per cent of excess deaths in which dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were listed as the underlying cause were still recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’; over 41 per cent of excess deaths from urinary diseases; nearly 40 per cent of excess deaths from cerebrovascular diseases; 41 per cent of excess deaths disease from other circulatory diseases; 33 per cent of excess deaths from heart diseases; and 31 per cent of excess deaths from liver diseases. While over 50 per cent of excess deaths from all other causes other than COVID-19 were still recorded as COVID-19 deaths.

We should remember that, if COVID-19 had been listed as the ‘underlying cause’ on any of these death certificates, they would all have been recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’ by the Office for National Statistics; yet for all these other underlying causes their appearance on the death certificate wasn’t enough to overcome the changes to the ONS criteria for compiling statistics on mortality in the UK. If not quite proof, this is further evidence of a deliberate and very successful attempt to falsify the official tally of ‘COVID-19’ deaths.

What these figures don’t show, unfortunately, is how many of the deaths from these diseases and illnesses not in excess of the 5-year average were also recorded as COVID-19. But until this information is published, which is unlikely to happen soon if ever, the analysis by Public Health England has additionally revealed that, between 21 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021, there were 18,851 excess deaths in England in which diabetes was mentioned on the death certificate, of which 15,589 were recorded as COVID-19 deaths, nearly 83 per cent of the total.

There were also 22,081 excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 in which dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were also mentioned on the death certificate. That’s slightly more than the 20,574 deaths in care homes that were attributed to COVID-19 on nothing more than the suspicion of the care home providers who locked the elderly and confused residents in their rooms and denied them human contact and medical care.

Finally, there were an astonishing 35,133 excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 in which acute respiratory infections, including influenza and pneumonia, were mentioned on the death certificate. If you’re wondering, as many people have been, where all the deaths from flu disappeared to last year, here’s your answer.

Indeed, the 76,065 excess deaths in which one or more of these 3 categories of health conditions appear on the death certificate equal nearly all of the 76,553 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 in 2020. So why, given the fatality of these causes in other years, was COVID-19 recorded as the underlying cause of death on so many of them in 2020?

The most logical answer to that question is the changes to disease taxonomy, protocol on completing death certificates, criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, the false positives produced by the RT-PCR testing programme, and the equation of such a positives with symptoms of COVID-19. To this end, the guidelines for death certification from the World Health Organisation about what defines a COVID-19 death are decisive: ‘A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer)’. Given these changes — which unlike the deaths from COVID-19 truly can be called ‘unprecedented’ — we’ll never know how many people actually died of the disease; but these figures give us some indication of the percentage of deaths misdiagnosed as such. What we do know is that, throughout 2020 and into 2021, the British Heart Foundation, the Institute of Cancer Research, the Alzheimer’s Society, the British Medical Journal and other organisations monitoring the nation’s medical treatment, health and mortality have all recorded and predicted huge increases in deaths from the withdrawal and reduction of medical care under lockdown restrictions.

Mathematically, it’s not possible for the deaths consequent upon these changes to the National Health Service throughout 2020 not to show up on the records of overall mortality. Yet, if we deduct the 81,653 deaths attributed to COVID-19 from the 608,002 deaths in England and Wales last year, we are left with 526,349 deaths from all other causes. That’s 12,734 fewer than the previous 5-year average of 539,083 deaths, when, as we have seen, mortality rates have been at historically low levels. Even with the nearly 5 million fewer diagnoses for cancer, the withdrawn medical care and treatment, the delayed and cancelled operations, the 8,000 fewer hospital beds for general and acute care available due to social distancing in hospitals, the medical staff quarantined on the basis of false positives on RT-PCR tests, the 7 million people too terrorised by the media to attend hospital, the more than 1 million people who didn’t receive emergency care, and the unrelenting assault on the physical and mental health of the population by medically baseless lockdown restrictions and a media campaign of terror, the number of deaths this year, other than those attributed to COVID-19, are lower than they have been since 2016. So the question we have to ask ourselves is: where have all those excess deaths gone?

Again, the most logical answer to that question — and the only one that makes sense of these otherwise inexplicable figures — is that they have been misdiagnosed or inaccurately recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’, and that the only epidemic we’re suffering, as our historically low mortality rate in 2020 indicates, is an epidemic of tests. How many have been misdiagnosed? Between 21 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021 there were 376,668 deaths in England attributed to causes other than COVID-19. If even 20 per cent of them were misdiagnosed as COVID-19, the 76,553 deaths in England officially attributed to COVID-19 last year would vanish. No doubt that’s going too far, but given the percentages of excess deaths from underlying causes other than COVID-19 falsely recorded as ‘COVID-deaths’, it’s possible to get a picture of how easy it has been to manufacture this crisis.

7. Conclusions

The rise in excess deaths in April and May, even over the historically low mortality rates of the last five years, strongly suggests the presence of a disease that, at the least, pushed the already vulnerable to a death that might otherwise have come over the influenza seasons of the last five years when deaths were, again, very low; or at some other time during 2020, or even in the near future. But because of the medical profile of the deceased and the age at which they died, this period of concentrated mortality did not contribute, as we would expect of an epidemic, to an overall rate of mortality different from those over the past 20 years. In 2004, for example, the rate of mortality (1,163.0 per 100,000 of the population) was as high above what it was in 2020 (1,043.5) as last year was above 2019 (925.0), which had the lowest rate ever. The year before that, 2003, it was even higher (1,232.1). So the exaggerated claims of an unprecedented rise in mortality rate from 2019 to 2020 is not borne out by the facts. What was different was how, after a period of sustained fall, this rise on overall mortality was explained to a public previously unaware of mortality rates, and what this suddenly increased awareness of our mortality has been used to justify.

84 per cent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020, over 68,000 deceased, were of people aged 70 years and over. 61 per cent were aged 80 years and over, the average life expectancy in the UK. Around 90 per cent had at least one pre-existing health condition, with most having two. To put these figures into context, in 2020 there were 9,189,000 people aged 70 years and over in the UK, and 412,408 of them, 4.48 per cent, died of causes not attributed to COVID-19. 0.7 per cent of them officially died of COVID-19. It wouldn’t take much to push a population of such elderly and frail people into a life-threatening situation. Lock them up for months on end. Deny them human contact on pain of arrest and fines they couldn’t hope to pay. Withdraw medical treatment. Quarantine their carers. Terrorise them with propaganda about a civilisation-ending disease. Order them to stay at home and avoid the contact of other people like the plague. Tell them hospitals standing empty are on the verge of being overwhelmed. Turn medical centres into places to fear, the breeding grounds of a deadly new disease. That should be more than enough. It has been more than enough. Then, change the medical protocol and criteria for identifying and recording the cause of their deaths, and against all the evidence against its fitness for such use, employ a medically meaningless test to turn traces of a virus that presents no threat to 80 per cent of the population into proof of infection and cause of death. This is how a crisis has been manufactured. This is how a virus is being used to justify the programmes and regulations of the UK biosecurity state.

Even if lockdown restrictions had been shown to do anything to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 — and dozens of scientific and medical studies from around the world show that it does not — there is nothing in these figures to justify their imposition and enforcement, or our compliance with them when and where they are. On the contrary, what these figures strongly suggest is that it is precisely these restrictions that are responsible for a large proportion of the excess deaths that have pushed the mortality rate higher than it has been for a dozen years. In my opinion, there is strong evidence to indicate that, at a conservative estimate, at least half the 80,000-plus deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 were caused by lockdown restrictions. The nearly 42,000 excess deaths over the 5-year average not attributed to COVID-19 at home and in care homes point towards that figure; as do the more than 43,000 excess deaths estimated to be caused by lockdown by the Office for National Statistics; and the increasingly concerned reports from our various medical bodies about the lack of hospital admissions for the primary causes of death in the UK. But that’s a conservative estimate. The scandal of more than 20,000 excess deaths in care homes swept under the COVID-19 carpet points towards a far higher number. But even at 40,000 people dying at the average life expectancy for the UK, that puts SARS-CoV-2 within the fatality rate of seasonal influenza — as numerous doctors, scientists and modellers not working for the Government or pharmaceutical companies said throughout 2020 — but without the threat influenza presents to the young.

But if the European epicentre of a global ‘pandemic’ is a country suffering its 12th lowest mortality rate in 4 decades, what have been its effects in other countries around the world? All the statistics presented in this article apply to the UK, which, if we don’t have the highest rate of deaths officially attributed to COVID-19 in the world, is certainly hovering around the winner’s podium. Yet the lockdown restrictions imposed upon us and the biosecurity programmes implemented in response to this manufactured crisis are not unique to the British Isles. The same restrictions and worse are being implemented in countries where this so-called ‘pandemic’ can have made no more than a ripple in their mortality rates.

In Germany, where 50,385 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 out of a population of 83.9 million, the Government has made medically meaningless face masks mandatory when leaving the home and announced that those refusing to remain under house arrest on the strength of an unfit-for-purpose RT-PCR test will be put in ‘detention centres’. In Canada, with a population of 37.92 million, 18,462 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19, about a third the number that die from heart disease every year, and less than a quarter that die from cancer, although without banning smoking or requiring exercise by law, or imposing fines on producers and closing down retailers of fatty foods. While in Australia, whose Government has enforced some of the most punitive biosecurity measures in the world, a mere 909 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 out of a population of 26.66 million, three-quarters the number that died in motor-vehicle accidents in 2019, which neither then nor in any previous year occasioned a ban on cars, the closing of roads until accidents dropped to an arbitrary number or ownership of a bicycle as a condition of travel. It is only for COVID-19 that governments have imposed a ban on the death of their citizens, and in doing so have killed at least as much again. If there has been mass compliance to the programmes and regulations of the biosecurity state in these comparatively unaffected countries, what hope is there that here, in the UK, the evidence contradicting claims of an ‘epidemic’ will do anything either to enlighten the terrorised population or to encourage civil disobedience to our subjugation?

Very little, it would appear. While compiling and analysing this data I presented some of it to someone who has appointed himself to inform his 21,500 followers on Twitter with a ‘daily COVID update’ of the data. In response to everything I showed him, he dutifully repeated Government propaganda about the efficacy of lockdown, a dangerously overwhelmed NHS, dismissed the huge increase in deaths at home in 2020 as those who would have died in hospital anyway, and attributed the reduction in deaths not attributed to COVID-19 over the 5-year average to a sudden improvement of healthcare that for some reason only came into effect last year. When I rebutted these assertions with further evidence and rational arguments he was unmoved. He was civil, which made his replies stand out from the abuse and threats I received from others on the thread, but utterly inseparable from the propaganda he had adopted as his own, and which no data contradicting it could alter. It is a long time since the reactions of the terrorised UK public were based on anything other than the lies of the Government and the manipulations of the media; but it is on the data presented in this article and other facts inconvenient to its exponents that resistance to this lie can and must be built by the undeceived.

On 5 January, 2021, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 into law. Without a draft being presented to, debated by or approved by Parliament, without evidence of its justification or proportionality, without an assessment of its impact having been made, and without the public having been consulted, this amendment unilaterally extended the current lockdown to 17 July, 2021. Under these restrictions, there will be tens of thousands more deaths, not only from the withdrawal of medical diagnosis, care and treatment, but also from the isolation of the old and frail, from the ongoing assault on the mental health of the young, from the recession of the economy, from the consequent reduction of public investment in an increasingly privatised National Health Service and other social services, and from the loss of millions of businesses and jobs.

Back in July 2020, the Office for National Statistics predicted a further 18,000 excess deaths occurring in the next 2-5 years due to increased heart disease and mental health problems; 12,500 excess deaths over the next 5 years from changes to elective care, with many non-urgent elective treatments continuing to be postponed or cancelled by the NHS; 15,000 excess deaths among young people just entering the labour market as a result of the lockdown-induced recession; and 17,000 excess deaths for every year that GDP remains low. And, of course, there are other costs, not least to the education and mental health of 11 million school children and students being inducted by our educational institutions into the programmes and technologies of the UK biosecurity state; and to the 30 million workers who, under the accelerated digitalisation of our economy and the threat of unemployment and redundancy, will be compelled to retrain to find new employment in the newly emerging markets of the Fourth Industrial Revolution monopolised by international corporations writing the laws of the countries from which their workforce is drawn. Finally, there are the costs to our politics and human rights, which have been thrown on the bonfire of freedoms ignited by the lies that have manufactured this crisis, and will not be returned in the future that awaits us by anything less than the overthrow of the constitutional dictatorship by which we are currently ruled.

The truth is that there was never a question of whether this Government would impose another lockdown on the UK in 2021. Lockdown isn’t a consequence of the failure of coronavirus-justified programmes and regulations: it’s the product of their success in implementing the UK biosecurity state. After a brief summer recess under the system of tiered restrictions, the following winter will see the lockdown of the UK imposed again under newly notifiable diseases from new viruses and new strains, new protocols for certification and new criteria for deaths, the new medical categorisation of new cases which, like the present ones, present little or no threat to public health, but which like it will be used to enforce new technologies, new programmes and new regulations. This is the ‘New Normal’ we were promised, and it’s being built on a foundation of lies, damned lies and statistics.

Further reading by the same author:

Our Default State: Compulsory Vaccination for COVID-19 and Human Rights Law

Bowling for Pfizer: Who’s Behind the BioNTech Vaccine?

Five Stories Under Lockdown

Bread and Circuses: Who’s Behind the Oxford Vaccine for COVID-19?

The Betrayal of the Clerks: UK Intellectuals in the Service of the Biosecurity State

Bonfire of the Freedoms: The Unlawful Exercise of Powers conferred by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

When the House Burns: Giorgio Agamben on the Coronavirus Crisis

The Infection of Science by Politics: A Nobel Laureate and Biophysicist on the Coronavirus Crisis

The New Normal: What is the UK Biosecurity State? (Part 2. Normalising Fear)

The New Normal: What is the UK Biosecurity State? (Part 1. Programmes and Regulations)

The Science and Law of Refusing to Wear Masks: Texts and Arguments in Support of Civil Disobedience

Lockdown: Collateral Damage in the War on COVID-19

The State of Emergency as Paradigm of Government: Coronavirus Legislation, Implementation and Enforcement

Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

Giorgio Agamben and the Bio-Politics of COVID-19

Good Morning, Coronazombies! Diary of a Bio-political Crisis Event

Coronazombies! Infection and Denial in the United Kingdom

Language is a Virus: SARs-CoV-2 and the Science of Political Control

Sociology of a Disease: Age, Class and Mortality in the Coronavirus Pandemic

COVID-19 and Capitalism

Architects for Social Housing is a Community Interest Company (no. 10383452). Although we occasionally receive minimal fees for our design work, the majority of what we do is unpaid and we have no source of public funding. 

April 14, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Former Pfizer VP Speaks Out On Dangers Of MRNA Vaccines & Covid Illusion

Taylor Hudak | The Last American Vagabond | April 11, 2021

Joining us today is Pfizer’s former Vice President and Chief Scientist for Allergy and Respiratory, Michael Yeadon, here to discuss his expert opinion on the topics of COVID-19, mRNA vaccine technology, as well as suppression and outright censorship of medical and scientific experts.

(https://www.rokfin.com/TLAVagabond)
(https://odysee.com/@TLAVagabond:5)
(https://www.bitchute.com/channel/24yVcta8zEjY/)

Video Source Links:

How Worried Should We Be About the New Variants?

https://doctors4covidethics.medium.com

https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/11/doctors-scientists-write-to-european-medicines-agency-warning-of-covid-19-vaccine-dangers/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death

 

April 13, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

The Magic of Israel

Now you see it, now you don’t

BY PHILIP GIRALDI • UNZ REVIEW • APRIL 13, 2021

The popular narrative of plucky little Israel prevailing over hordes of bloodthirsty Arabs has captured the Western imagination even though it is manifestly false in almost every detail. But Israel’s greatest accomplishment might well be something else, it’s ability to make things disappear. It plausibly all began in June 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty, a lightly armed but well identified US naval vessel cruising in international waters under a large American flag. Fighter bombers and torpedo boats sought to sink the ship, destroying the lifeboats so no one would escape. In the engagement, 34 American military personnel were killed and a further 171 wounded, before a heroic defense by the crew managed to save the vessel. President Lyndon Johnson, who said he would rather see the ship sink than embarrass his friend Israel, started a cover-up which has lasted to this day. There has been no legitimate court of inquiry into the attack and when the ship’s captain received a Medal of Honor for his heroism, it was awarded secretly in the Washington Navy Yard rather than openly at the White House. Israel and its legion of apologists certainly know how to make potential embarrassments disappear.

Last week on this site I posted an article that I thought would prove to be extremely interesting to those who have been expressing concern about foreign interference in our government. It included a link to a series of computer screen texts provided by a credible independent source demonstrating that an employee of the Israeli Consulate General was deeply involved in what appears to be extorting millions of dollars from the father of a congressman based on assisting that congressman through some legal difficulties. The scheme being concocted also included discussion of arrangements for a commando raid on Iran to free a prisoner. The information conveyed in the screenshots that were provided of the texts has not been disputed by anyone involved in the venture, but as I thought the accompanying article was timid in its willingness to draw any conclusions, I wrote my piece attempting to connect the dots.

The Congressman involved was, of course, Matt Gaetz of Florida, who is now facing the House Ethics Committee, surely an oxymoron if there ever was one, concerning his primarily sexual exploits. To my surprise, however, there has been hardly a word in the mainstream media about looking deeper into the possible Israeli connection. One would have thought the copied texts would be newsworthy due to the extortion angle but even more due to the fact that an armed attack on a nation with which the US is not at war was being funded and planned by a foreign government’s diplomatic mission in New York.

To be sure my article did very well both on Unz and even Facebook, though I had to cut and paste it in the latter site due to its blocking of Unz. I did a bit more checking and noted something that has been occurring for some time: the piece, like others relating to Israel, was not coming up on search engines like Google, which means it was not getting the exposure that it merited. I search daily by my name assuming that my pieces if replayed elsewhere will be displayed. In the past I would sometimes get scores of hits on a popular article, but during the past year hardly anything has been appearing. I have to assume that deliberate and widespread censorship of articles critical of Israel is taking place, which was no surprise as friends of Israel are not exactly rare in the social media. Facebook’s censorship board, for example, includes a former Israeli government minister.

It all comes down to the power of the Israeli/Jewish lobby and its ability to make things that it does not like go away. And sometimes it can make things happen that are manifestly not in the interest of the United States. Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy ever in the history of the United States, was recently allowed to return to Israel. In an interview on March 26th he said that any American Jews working for US intelligence agencies must do their duty and spy for Israel because one’s real loyalty is to the Jewish state and one’s co-religionists.

Clearly Pollard is not alone and it was shocking to learn that outgoing president Donald Trump pardoned the Israeli agent who recruited and presumably helped “run” Pollard when he was stealing US secrets. Aviem Sella received a full pardon from Trump as part of hundreds of last minute pardons, many of which had been arranged through two Orthodox Jewish agencies favored by presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Sella was a retired Israeli air force officer doing graduate studies and living in the US when he enlisted Pollard to spy for Israel. He fled the country after Pollard was arrested in 1985 and was charged in absentia on three espionage counts but Israel refused to extradite him to the US to stand trial. A White House statement noted that Sella’s request for clemency received support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli ambassador in Washington Ron Dermer, the American ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and Miriam Adelson, the widow of the Republican Party’s top donor and Trump supporter Sheldon Adelson. Would anyone expect otherwise?

The Sella pardon should be seen for what it is. It was a gift to the corrupt Netanyahu, who was at the time facing another national election. It served no US national interest at all and in fact sent the message to those who might be tempted a la Pollard that spying for Israel might be regarded as consequence free, in fact desirable and the right thing to do. Of course, the special “exemption” when dealing with Israel should also be regarded as a tribute to Jewish power in the United States, which relies on the corruption of those in leadership positions, using financial inducements or even blackmail backed up by smears of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial for those who cannot be bought.

And the power to corrupt governments and media is not limited to the United States. Nearly everyone in public office or who relies on the media for an income understands one does not cross the Israel Lobby. In Britain, former Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan has written a memoir that accuses pro-Israel lobbyists of “the most disgusting interference” in British politics while also distorting the country’s foreign policy in the Middle East to favor the Jewish state.

Duncan also claimed that Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) went “ballistic” and blocked him from becoming the Middle East minister at the Foreign Office. Duncan has long been a major target for the Israel lobby. In 2017, an Al Jazeera documentary exposed the maneuvering of pro-Israel groups working together with the Israeli Embassy in London to “take down” Duncan and also Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Per Duncan, Conservative Friends of Israel, which openly promotes the interests of a foreign country, had successfully promoted a “Netanyahu-type view of Israeli politics into our foreign policy.” In one chapter Duncan criticized Conservative MPs’ fawning over Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Britain, a performance apparently similar to the time when Bibi addressed the US Congress and received 27 standing ovations.

The Duncan book appeared when another story broke about how a group called “UK Lawyers for Israel” acting on behalf of the Israeli government has been altering the material included in secondary school text books. Per a statement issued by Pearson, the largest publisher of school books in the UK, the company has suspended publication of two textbooks responding to “an eight-page report, by Middle East specialists Professors John Chalcraft and James Dickins, which found hundreds of changes to the textbooks overwhelmingly favoring an Israeli narrative and removing or replacing passages that support Palestinian narratives.”

Censorship of course materials as well as textbooks by Jewish groups to depict Israel in a certain way has certainly been going on in the United States for many years. And the corruption of our institutions to favor Israel and protect it from criticism is incessant. It will be interesting to see if the Gaetz story in all its aspects will ever be allowed to surface or whether the congressman will be offered some inducement to allow him to quietly resign. Somehow, it reminds one of the still unresolved Jeffrey Epstein case in which Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell obtained blackmail material relating to world leaders and celebrities having sex with young girls, somewhat similar to the claims regarding Gaetz.

Many including myself believe that Epstein was part of an Israeli intelligence operation, similar in scale to what was being run on 9/11, which sought to “influence” key figures on issues regarded as important by the Jewish state. Clearly, the game goes on with no one in Washington caring much about the damage being done. Do corrupted and intimidated Congressmen over their morning coffee ponder whether certain activities are “Good for Israel” and therefore not subject to further scrutiny? Judging from Epstein and Gaetz, one would have to believe that to be the case.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

April 13, 2021 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 3 Comments

A Deceptive Construction – Why We Must Question The COVID 19 Mortality Statistics

By Iain Davis | UKCOLUMN | March 28, 2021

According to the UK Government, as of 27 March 2021, 126,515 people have died as a result of contracting Covid-19, and an additional 21,610 people have died with COVID-19 on their death certificates.

The government alleges, therefore, that a total of 148,125 people in the UK have died as a result of COVID-19. As we shall see, this claim is not credible.

Justifiable Policy?

Claims about mortality have been used by both the government and the mainstream media to justify the policy response.

The pace of change driven by that policy response has been astonishing. With Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s recent announcement of the creation of the UK Health Security Agency and its commitment to take “action to mitigate infectious diseases and other hazards to health before they materialise,” it is clear the government’s new (ab)normal is here to stay.

There is clearly an agenda; one entirely founded upon the idea that COVID-19 presents a significant threat. The primary evidence offered to substantiate this claim is suggested COVID-19 mortality.

Age Standardised Mortality

Just like nearly every other mortality cause, COVID-19 risks increase proportionately with age. Statistics for those of working age show a population mortality risk of between 0.0166% and 0.0046%, depending upon who you believe. The COVID-19 risk to the working age population is statistically insignificant. For the under 18’s it is statistically zero.

Mortality risk disproportionately impacts men. In 2018 the average age of death for men was approximately 80, and 83 for women in England and Wales.

The average age of COVID-19 death is just over 82. When we look at standard mortality distribution, there is no observable impact from COVID-19.

UK all cause mortality doesn’t suggest any need to panic either.

The ONS released data estimating a total of 607,173 deaths from all causes in England and Wales for 2020. Given demographic changes over time, the ONS use Age Standardised Mortality Rates (ASMR’s) to calculate relative death rates. The ASMR showed that 2020 was the worst year for mortality in the last decade.

ASMR’s were in continual decline throughout the post war period. That decline stopped abruptly in 2009 as the economic impact of the global financial crisis took its toll on public health. Thereafter it showed a marginal rise to 2019. Mortality in 2020 and 2021 should be seen in the context of a global financial crisis that dwarfs the credit crunch of 2008.

ASMR’s fluctuate annually and 2020 showed a significant increase above the 5 year average mortality rate. This was higher than most rises but by no means “unprecedented.” ASMR’s in England since 1938 show similar increases in 1947, 1949, 1951, 1958, 1963, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1985, 1993 and 2014.

Most of these spikes in ASMR’s were in the region of 35 to 45 points. For example, in 2014 the ASMR rose by 40.2, in 1993 by 38.4 and in 1985 by 46.3 points. It rose by 90.5 in 1947, by 83.5 in 1963, it went up by 104.9 in 1970 and in 1951 by 216.3. So the 2020 rise of 118.5 is by no means the worst.

The death toll in 1951 was attributed to the the influenza epidemic which struck some parts of the UK (most notably Liverpool) but left others relatively unscathed. To this day science has struggled to account for this.

2020 not only didn’t have the highest mortality rate in the post war period, it didn’t have the highest mortality rate in the 21st century either. 2020 ranked 9th, out of 20 consecutive years, for all cause mortality in England and Wales. It was the 11th least dangerous year in the last 50.

While there is no statistical evidence of an unprecedented global pandemic in England and Wales (nor in Scotland and Northern Ireland) this tells us little about how many deaths were genuinely attributable to COVID-19. Nor does it indicate at which point we should sacrifice our rights, freedoms, children’s educations and economy in the service of public health.

We certainly didn’t sacrifice them in 1947, 1963, 1970, nor even in 1951. Why was 2020 different?

PCR Does Not Mean COVID

For the purposes of this analysis, we will use the government’s higher claim of 148,000 deaths. The vast majority of these deaths were attributed based upon a positive RT-PCR test. The UK Coronavirus Act makes a clear distinction between the virus and the disease. It states:

Coronavirus means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); coronavirus disease means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus).

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 are not the same thing. The detected presence of SARS-CoV-2 does not mean the person has or will develop COVID-19.

Therefore the attribution of mortality based solely upon a positive test result in no way proves the person died of COVID-19. The extent to which the disease caused or contributed towards a death is a precise medical assessment. The UK government created a death certification and registration process where this did not occur in an unknown number of cases. We need to know what that number is.

COVID-19 has a distinct presentation that requires careful diagnosis. The unique symptoms are severe hypoxemia (low blood oxygen levels), hypercapnia (elevated blood Co2 saturation) and unusually no corresponding loss of respiratory system compliance.

Measurement of gaseous exchange and fluid retention in the lungs appears normal, meanwhile the patient, in serious cases, struggles to breath. This is unlike other influenza like illnesses (ILI’s).

Yet the NHS describe a list of COVID-19 symptoms that could be attributable to any ILI. A high temperature, continuous cough and loss of taste and smell are associated with many. While this is public information, intended to guide our decision to seek medical advice or a test, the list of possible causes expands further given that the NHS state just one of these symptoms possibly indicates COVID-19.

Without precise symptomatic diagnosis, it is difficult to distinguish COVID-19 from a range of other respiratory illnesses. A study from the University of Toronto found:

The symptoms can vary, with some patients remaining asymptomatic, while others present with fever, cough, fatigue, and a host of other symptoms. The symptoms may be similar to patients with influenza or the common cold.

Cochran Review meta analysis of available studies looked for a clear definition of COVID-19 symptoms. Published in June 2020, the reviewers noted:

The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties … Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease.

Even using advanced diagnostics, such as a computer tomography (CT) scan, won’t always provide a clear result. A study attempting to improve differential diagnosis using CT scans found:

Although typical and atypical CT image findings of COVID-19 are reported in current studies, the CT image features of COVID-19 overlap with those of viral pneumonia and other respiratory diseases. Hence, it is difficult to make an exclusive diagnosis.

Regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 test status, without a very accurate diagnosis of symptoms, suspected COVID-19 patients could be suffering from one among a range of ILI’s. Again, a positive test result does not mean the patient died from COVID-19, even if they had corresponding symptoms.

Notifications of Infectious Diseases

In England and Wales it is a legal requirement for all registered medical practitioners to notify their local health authority of any suspected cases of notifiable diseases. The list of Notifiable Infectious Diseases (NOIDS) includes COVID-19. This is not optional.

All diagnosing doctors must complete a NOIDS report upon making a diagnosis. Testing laboratories are also required to notify Public Health England (PHE) of positive tests for notifiable diseases.

According to the fact checker FullFact there were 18,152 COVID-19 notifications made by doctors in the whole of 2020.

Yet the government claim that there were 70,853 COVID-19 deaths, never mind cases, in England and Wales in the same year.

Fullfact offered an explanation for this apparent huge discrepancy:

People with Covid symptoms are advised to get a test, but not to visit their doctor, which may be part of the reason why doctors reported so few cases of the disease through NOIDS. Since Covid became widespread in the UK, and began to be monitored in other ways, it is also possible that doctors felt there was little need to continue notifying PHE about each case.

This is not credible. While it is true that people were told not to go to a doctor if they suspected they had COVID-19, a diagnosis by a doctor was still necessary at some point. Self diagnosis doesn’t usually afford access to hospital treatment. The suggestion by FullFact that doctors unilaterally decided not to bother with their statutory obligations is ridiculous.

What this massive difference between claimed cases, subsequent COVID-19 mortality and NOIDS indicates, is that Doctors were largely reliant upon laboratory testing to fulfil the duty to notify the authorities. This adds considerable weight to the notion that laboratory testing was the leading determinant in the overwhelming majority of COVID-19 diagnosis.

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 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in March, have died of cancer in August and subsequently have been recorded as a COVID-19 statistic.

The scientific rationale for this did not exist. Research conducted by scientists at Oxford University analysed the COVID-19 Hospitalisation in England Surveillance System (CHESS) and calculated the average time between infection (positive test) and mortality to be 26.8 days.

And so, in response to public and scientific pressure this approach changed to only recording a COVID-19 death within 28 days of a positive test. Still the UK government would not let go of its inflated number system, adding nothing but statistical confusion, they announced:

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 by 5,377 in England alone. This didn’t make any difference to the number of people who had died from COVID-19, it just changed the number of people who had reportedly died from COVID-19.

This wasn’t the only notable change to the data gathering process. Just before the significant spring spike in mortality, on the 30th March 2020, the MSM reported that the government had instructed the ONS to change the way they record COVID-19 deaths. Hitherto the ONS only reported a COVID-19 death if it was recorded as the direct or underlying cause. This was changed to recording “mentions” of COVID-19. A 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.

The reporting of COVID-19 comorbidity rates was“paused” in July and has yet to resume. The final published ONS analysis that directly reported the number of pre-exiting conditions for deaths “with” COVID-19 mentioned on the death certificate, was released for the period ending 30 June 2020.

From this we learned that 91.1% of alleged COVID deaths had at least 1 serious additional comorbidity. The mean number of comorbidities for a those under 70 was 2.1 and for the vast majority over 70 it was 2.3.

It is 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 to this day.

Covid-19 Cures the Flu

COVID-19 also cured influenza and other respiratory disease, such as adenovirus. Early January is always a period of notable influenza outbreaks, resultant hospital admissions and mortality. This is evident if we look at PHE’s Weekly Influenza Report for week 2 in any year prior to 2020.

In 2020, according to the newly combined PHE Weekly Influenza and COVID Report, there have been virtually no cases of influenza, treatment or related deaths.

The ONS note all the details on a death certificate. In their mortality roundup for the January to August 2020 period they stated:

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.

How can flu and pneumonia possibly be on more death certificates than COVID-19 if, as the media and PHE allege, it has been wiped out? It seems the medical profession didn’t get the memo.

A Systemic Catch-22

A positive SARS-CoV-2 test appears to be the primary reason for attribution of mortality. Only the most fastidious diagnosis can differentiate between COVID-19 symptoms and other ILI’s. Is it credible to believe that flu and pneumonia are on more death certificates but that COVID-19 is deemed the cause of death on three times as many Medical Certificates of Cause of Death (MCCD’s)?

These are somewhat rhetorical questions. The reason why bizarre anomalies like this occurred is because recording COVID-19 as the cause of death was practically unavoidable.

The Coronavirus Act overhauled the MCCD and death registration processes. In addition, World Health Organisation Coding changes and guidance issued by the NHS and other medical authorities combined to create a systemic Catch-22.

In England and Wales an MCCD is completed online using the WHO’s recommended coding. The MCCD is split into sections. Part 1. a) “Disease or condition directly leading to death”; b) “Other disease or condition, if any, leading to (a)”; and c) “Other disease or condition, if any, leading to (b)”.

Part 2 records “Other significant conditions contributing to the death, but not related to the disease or condition causing it.” For example, a person may have died from heart failure caused by pneumonia but obesity, though not directly related to the immediate cause of death, could have contributed and would therefore be recorded in Part 2.

In the case of respiratory disease, the direct cause of death could be Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). This may be brought on by, for example, pneumonia which was caused by influenza. In this instance the direct cause of death would be recorded in Part 1. a) as ARDS, prompted by pneumonia in Part1. b), and the underlying cause would be set as influenza in Part 1. c).

The WHO Family of International Classifications (WHOFIC) Network Classification and Statistics Advisory Committee (CSAC) created new International Classification of Diseases codes (ICD-10 codes) for COVID-19. If the decedent had tested positive, or had been in contact with anyone else who had, a recorded COVID-19 death was practically a fait accompli.

“confirmed case” was dependent solely upon a positive test result and was given the code U07.1. Observable symptoms were not necessary for U07.1 code to be recorded on a death certificate.

suspected COVID-19 case was coded as U07.2. A decedent known to have had contact with a SARS-CoV-2 positive person who, while neither testing positive nor having any symptoms themselves, was deemed a suspected/probable COVID-19 case and given the code U07.2.

Neither the U07.1 nor the U07.2 codes required any evidence that the decedent had COVID-19.

As the U07.1 code indicated a “confirmed case,” unless the decedent passed away from something obviously unrelated, such as head trauma, a SARS-CoV-2 positive test would almost automatically confirm COVID-19 as the underlying cause of death.

The WHO clearly described this process in their International MCCD coding guidelines. They defined what death “due” to COVID-19 was:

A death due to COVID-19 is defined for surveillance purposes as a death resulting from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease (e.g. trauma). There should be no period of complete recovery from COVID-19 between illness and death. A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer).

A clinically compatible illness could be any ILI. Even if the individual died from cancer, as long as they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, or the Doctor suspected respiratory distress, the death would be registered as “due to” COVID-19. COVID-19 would again be the reported as the underlying cause.

Additional WHO guidance stated:

COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death. Although both categories, U07.1 … and U07.2 … are suitable for cause of death coding … it is recommended, for mortality purposes only, to code COVID-19 provisionally to U07.1 unless it is stated as probable or suspected.

If a doctor was uncertain and merely suspected a probable COVID-19 case, they were clearly advised to record it on the MCCD as a confirmed case (U07.1 and not U07.2). Again, ensuring it would be reported as the “underlying cause.”

The Office of National Statistics stated:

Deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) include those with an underlying cause, or any mention, of U07.1 (COVID-19, virus identified) or U07.2 (COVID-19, virus not identified) …

If the Doctor held firm and coded COVID-19 as U07.2 on Part 2 of the MCCD, the ONS (and the NRS and NISA) would still report it as a COVID-19 death.

In the Clear

The Coronavirus Act indemnified all NHS doctors against any claims of malpractice or negligence. It removed the need for a second medical opinion (Medical Examiner), it effectively ruled out both post-mortem examinations and jury-led coroner’s inquests, allowed virtually anyone to act as the qualified informant and facilitated rapid cremation.

In response to the Coronavirus Act and WHO IC10 coding, the NHS issued guidance to doctors for the completion of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD). The COVID-19 death certification and registration process they produced beggars belief. Under the guidance, acting on their own without any corroborating opinion:

Any medical practitioner with GMC registration can sign the MCCD, even if they did not attend the deceased during their last illness.

Attend doesn’t mean examine either. Checking in with the decedent via Zoom is sufficient. Failing that, if the MCCD signing doctor has only seen the decedent after death, providing they have tested positive, a review of their notes is still sufficient to record a COVID-19 death. The NHS stated COVID-19 could be recorded wherever:

A medical practitioner has attended the deceased (including visual/video consultation) within 28 days before death, or viewed the body in person after death.

In keeping with the WHO coding guidelines, there isn’t even any need for a positive test result. The NHS guidance added:

If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death … In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.

The NHS then created a system of remote death certification:

During periods of excess deaths due to COVID-19, healthcare providers are encouraged to redeploy medical practitioners whose role does not usually include direct patient care, such as some medical examiners, to provide indirect support by working as dedicated certifiers, completing MCCDs.

These dedicated certifiers, though medically qualified, are tasked with signing off COVID-19 MCCD’s. GP’s and hospital physicians gather reports, perhaps from a review of the deceased’s medical notes or a video conference with a care home provider, and pass that information to the dedicated COVID-19 certifier for MCCD completion.

The NHS advised that no proof was required for the attribution of a COVID-19 death. They stated:

Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle ‘2’ in the MCCD (information from post-mortem may be available later)

This suggestion that a post mortem may be available is implausible.

Additional guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists states:

If a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.

Bearing in mind that the WHO had instructed suspected U07.2 deaths to be coded as confirmed U07.1 deaths, the chance of anything other than confirmed COVID-19 death reaching a pathologist is extremely remote. Any MCCD signed “without diagnostic proof” would almost certainly be agreed by the pathologist without further scrutiny. The mere act of putting COVID-19 anywhere on the MCCD was enough to negate the need for a post mortem.

This new death certification system, specifically designed for COVID-19, has understandably caused confusion. The British Medical Association’s verification of death guidance advises that if no signing doctor has seen the decedent prior to completing the MCCD they should refer it to the coroner. However, this was only a policy recommendation not a legal requirement.

Contradicting this, the Chief Coroner advised:

COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death … The aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD process.

This means that even if a coroner receives a referral from a doctor, they will be highly likely to automatically approve the MCCD without further inquiry. Since a post mortem has already effectively been ruled out, there will be little point in the coroner investigating further.

NHS staff and carers who may have been uncomfortable with all this have been under no illusions. The use of draconian Hospital Trust gagging orders (non disclosure agreements) are widely reported. Carers who have spoken out have been sacked.

To finalise this unbelievable COVID-19 death registration system, the Coronavirus Act also withdrew the standard second opinion required prior to cremation. The need to complete Cremation form 5 was suspended for all COVID-19 deaths.

Alleged COVID-19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence that they ever had the disease, regardless of their family’s wishes, swiftly ending any chance of any investigation by sceptical family members.

What was the Cause of Death?

SAGE assessed the UK mean operational false positive rate (FPR) for RT-PCR to be 2.3% of all conducted tests. The government say they have conducted just over 118M tests of which 4.3M were positive. This includes an unknown number of multiple tests of the same individual. A mean FPR of 2.3% suggests 2.7M of those 4.3M positive tests were false positives. This equates to 62.7% of all positive test results.

As we have already discussed it is highly likely that laboratory testing was the primary determinant for a diagnosis of COVID-19. Therefore it is not unreasonable to surmise that at least 50% of claimed COVID-19 deaths were attributed on the basis of false positives. We can halve the claimed 148,000 to 74,000 COVID-19 deaths.

The 2020 ONS mortality data for England showed a reduction in deaths from a number of other causes.

Deaths from Ischaemic heart diseases were 1,450 below the 5 year average. Cerebrovascular disease was down by 2,276, malignant respiratory neoplasm by 1,537, chronic lower respiratory disease by 2,764 and influenza and pneumonia deaths were 7,313 below the 5 year average. An apparent reduction of 15,340 deaths from other causes.

It seems highly likely that these deaths were wrongly recorded as COVID-19.

As we have seen above, approximately 90% of supposed COVID-19 decedents had at least one other comorbidity. Using the Government’s 148,125 figure, we might claim, therefore that only something like 15,000 of these died of, rather than with.

Is this claim justifiable? Well, consider this:

The Department of Health and Social Care published a study of residents in care homes which purported to show the total number of confirmed cases. Among this number they claimed:

80.9% of residents who tested positive were asymptomatic.

A meta analysis by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine found that asymptomatic rates among those who tested positive varied between 5% – 80%. If there are no symptoms, then the disease cannot have contributed towards a death.

Taking everything into account, from high rates of comorbidity, to low rates of symptomatic individuals, the impact of false positives on testing and a death certification regime heavily biased towards recording COVID-19 as the underlying cause, then it is reasonable to conclude that the total number of deaths from Covid-19 is not 148,000, nor 126,000, but much closer to 15,000.

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics | , , | Leave a comment

A very convenient pandemic

By Daniel Miller | Conservative Woman | April 8, 2021

IN THE early stages of the ongoing ‘war on terror’, which started twenty years ago, a nebulous conception of the enemy, non-existent victory conditions and the consistent dishonesty of warmongering politicians such as Blair led some to wonder if the threat of the global ‘Axis of Evil’ had been exaggerated to achieve some other set of goals.

Today, in similar circumstances of unanswered questions and ambiguous realities underpinned by systematic deception, reinforced by Boris Johnson on Monday as he launched the new phase of the psychological and economic war he is waging on the British people – vaccine passports (and after that?) – this question is being asked:

Is there a pandemic? Was there ever a pandemic?

Perhaps the most important point to grasp is that a pandemic is a construct, not an object. There is nothing you can point at which is the pandemic, only various data points indicating that one exists.

The World Health Organisation changed its definition in 2008 to exclude the criterion of ‘enormous numbers of deaths and illness’. In other words, the definition of a pandemic is ultimately a matter of interpretation. There is no data that currently supports the claim there is a pandemic in Britain at this moment, and whether any data ever did is doubtful..

The scientific process has happened in reverse. Starting in January last year, the existence of a deadly new pandemic, unlike anything previously confronted, was conjectured on the basis of terrifying rumours and unreliable reports from China, not scientifically established facts.

Once the existence of an extraordinary pandemic was assumed, extraordinary measures were justified to fight it, including the rapid deployment of highly unreliable PCR protocols developed by the Gates Foundation-funded Christian Drosten, shock propaganda messaging, a massive and drastic reduction in health care provision (which has functionally destroyed the NHS in order to ‘protect’ it) and de facto euthanasia policies in care homes, based on Neil Ferguson’s Gates Foundation-funded models.

Compromised administrative procedures recorded deaths as lives lost to the pandemic, providing further evidence for its existence.

As is now well known, an overwhelming majority of pandemic casualties also suffered from other conditions and the average age of victims tracks life expectancy in every country.

If the pandemic had not been assumed to exist, and the reckless and cynical interventions against it had not taken place, how would anyone know there was one?

Data clearly demonstrates that lockdowns and related policies were never necessary or effective. Experimental therapies have been deployed which are unreliable and potentially dangerous. Vaccination may or may not prevent contagion or transmission. The fact that governments and their paid experts are unable or unwilling to incorporate these matters into their thinking testifies either to their sinister intentions or the extent to which their mental processes have been corrupted.

Either they believe that some clandestine end justifies repressive and deceptive means, or else they are insane, or mindless through conformism: there is no other explanation.

Phenomenologically, the most important evidence for the existence of the pandemic is its external signifiers, especially face masks, this mass psychological theatre.

Here again, the conjecture of the pandemic itself justified the imposition of the mandate, and nothing else: no evidence supports the thesis that masks have any positive medical effect and the more plausible scenario is their medical effect is negative. Nonetheless the Gates Foundation-funded behavioural psychologists of Sage and their equivalents in other countries argued that mandating them was necessary (‘because most people still did not feel sufficiently threatened’).

The vague objective of an incomprehensible ambition, opposed against a nightmare, discloses a more concrete aim: control.

Why the authors of this initiative want control presents a complex question. Either they just want it without even knowing why, or they want it for another reason. Perhaps they have a broader plan which demands dramatically upgraded repression.

Either way, what they seem to desire is control over the bodies of their populations. In the idea of vaccine passports, what is being implemented is a political and legal climate in which experimental genetic therapies on human populations are normalised and inescapable. Armed with vaccine passports, global governments and their corporate allies would be able to establish the foundations of a global surveillance state, with the power to monitor every social interaction.

Vaccine passports are the gateway to the most radical slavery the world has ever seen. It now seems likely that creating a psychological and social climate in which to impose them was always the aim behind the engineered pandemic. The pandemic was needed to impose the vaccinations, and the vaccinations are needed to impose the passport.

This transformation of one part of the population into the vaccinated simultaneously invents the unvaccinated, a problem which could eventually be resolved through liquidation, but meanwhile offering opportunity for politically profitable stigmatisation. The vaccinated (via vaccine passports) are granted ‘privileges’ that the unvaccinated are denied in order to compel compliance.

Like accepting being forced to wear a government mandated gimp mask, for no reason whatsoever, a person accepting vaccination implicitly accepts the terms of the new normal. At the same time, vaccination is a ritual, substantiating membership in a psychological community.

Anyone who supposes the vaccine passport could lead to discrimination fails to grasp that this is the whole purpose of this document. The entire point is to divide society, to rule it. By creating checkpoints everywhere, power flows to the authority controlling access, in this case Johnson and his faction: a criminal cartel.

Accepting vaccination does not automatically imply a happy ending. The privilege to resume the semblance of a normal life (a ’new normal’ life) is linked to vaccination status now, but the reasoning behind this privilege is contingent on the existence of the non-vaccinated. Once non-vaxxers vanish, the reason for continuing to offer privileges is also gone. At this point a new status category can be introduced, and the same selective sequence played again. In this way, it would be possible progressively to eliminate a significant percentage of the population.

So far the theatre of the pandemic has been organised as a campaign of psychological manipulation with policies conceived to ‘nudge’ compliance by alternately dangling rewards (which are usually snatched away) and making threats. This campaign has also featured systematic censorship and intimidation directed against some of the most accomplished scientists in the world.

Although these tactics make a mockery of the principle of informed consent, they are of the ‘softer’ variety. Ultimately, more aggressive tactics will be deployed. The intensifying lawlessness of the police now points in this direction.

What can be done? The government is ruling via a threadbare fraud. When that disintegrates what will remain is force, but the real command authority of Johnson and his collaborators over the monopoly of violence that defines the British state has barely been tested.

Would British police or soldiers open fire on peaceful protesters on Johnson’s, Gove’s or Starmer’s orders? The question may arise. So far, the Territorial Support Group have been used by Johnson to attack protesters, and a strategy of tension is being used to increase antagonism between the people and the police, but further escalation would be risky.

What is needed in the meantime is urgently to unwind the cycle of compliance, beginning with the mass removal of the mask, extending to the deconstruction of the narrative, and culminating in total disobedience against the tyranny now represented by this illegitimate and shameful government.

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Former minister blasts pro-Israel lobby over ‘disgusting interference’ in British politics

MEMO | April 9, 2021

Former Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan has accused pro-Israel lobbyists of “the most disgusting interference” in British politics, and of negatively influencing the country’s foreign policy in the Middle East. The veteran politician has also claimed that Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) went “ballistic” and blocked him from taking on a new post covering the region’s affairs.

Duncan, a former Conservative MP and government minister, makes the sensational claims in his newly published memoir, In The Thick of It: The private diaries of a minister (published by William Collins, 2021). Speaking to journalist Michael Crick about his book for the MailPlus website, the 64 year-old blasted CFI and its undue influence in British politics.

Conservative Friends of Israel, he said, had injected a “Netanyahu-type view of Israeli politics into our foreign policy,” referring to Israel’s right-wing prime minister. He claimed that it had applied pressure on Theresa May’s government to prevent him becoming Middle East minister at the Foreign Office.

In his book, Duncan claims that his new role was agreed until the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson alerted him to the fact that CFI “are going ballistic”. He insists that he was blocked from taking the post because he believes in the rights of the Palestinians.

In one diary entry Duncan is scathing about Conservative MPs’ fawning over Benjamin Netanyahu during his visit to Britain. He was “ashamed” of the British government, accusing officials of allowing Netanyahu to “peddle pro-settlement propaganda”.

Duncan described to Crick the culture of fear created by CFI. “A lot of things do not happen in foreign policy or in government for fear of offending them because that’s the way it’s put to them by the CFI.”

He warned: “It’s a sort of buried scandal that has to stop… they will interfere at a high level in British politics in the interests of Israel on the back of donor power in the UK.” Ultimately, he pointed out, the influence of the pro-Israel lobby group came at the expense of the Palestinians.

Duncan has been a major target for the pro-Israel lobby. In 2017, an Al Jazeera documentary sensationally exposed the operations of pro-Israel lobbyists working with the Israeli Embassy in London to “take down” a minister of the Crown. Duncan, fellow Conservative MP Crispin Blunt and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn were marked out as targets. Writing for Al Jazeera at the time, Robert Grenier, a retired, 27-year veteran of the CIA’s Clandestine Service, warned against what he called the “insidious threats” of the pro-Israel lobby.

Read also: Conservative Friends of Israel urge UK to oppose ICC’s war crimes investigation

April 10, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | 1 Comment

Keeping us masked forever? The Davos set’s dystopian ambitions are very clear

By Neil Clark | RT | April 9, 2021

The WEF’s promotion of a Chinese ‘smart face mask’ that tracks every breath its wearer takes is further evidence that the changes to Western society over the last 12 months of Covid are intended to be permanent.

“It’s only for when you pop into Tesco’s to do your weekly shop, what‘s your problem with that, you selfish ‘right-wing’ libertarian?” That’s how the introduction of mandatory face-masks was sold to us in Britain last summer, by its virtue-signalling, “Look at me, I’m such a good citizen” supporters.

Masks would be temporary – restricted to shops – and as soon as the Covid threat had passed they would be dispensed with, like social distancing. Anyone who said these measures were designed to be permanent – and were part of the global elite’s plan to keep the plebs muzzled up forever – was dismissed as a ‘crank’ and ‘a conspiracy theorist’.

Well, nine months on, and where are we?

The UK government has issued a ‘road map’ for taking us – with the speed of a 150-year-old Galapagos Island tortoise on sleeping tablets – out of lockdown. But there’s no mention of when masks and social distancing will be dispensed with.

Could that be because there’s no intention of masks and social distancing ever being dispensed with? It certainly appears that way.

Since last July, we’ve seen the mask mandate expanded. You are now asked to wear them not just in shops, but in all indoor areas, unless exempt. Even school children have to wear them in class. That decision was supposed to be reviewed at Easter, and, guess what, the government has just extended the school mask mandate until the summer. In addition, football fans will be expected to wear masks when they’re finally allowed back into grounds this spring at ‘trial’ events.

‘Following the science’? Hardly. We shouldn’t forget that in the week that masks were first introduced last summer, deaths with Covid literally reached zero.

The BBC’s Health Correspondent Deborah Cohen asked the World Health Organisation if their change of advice on masks had been due to political lobbying, and they did not deny.

Why, if masks were so important in preventing transmission, weren’t we told to wear them last March and April? In fact, government scientists advised us not to wear them.

Now, it seems not only must we wear them, but we need to get used to them being a permanent part of daily life in the ‘New Abnormal’. In their recent paper, ‘Evaluating England’s Road Map out of Lockdown‘, published on the UK government’s website, the Imperial College Covid-19 Response team state: “Whilst the impact of Test Trace Isolate, mask wearing, hand hygiene and COVID security on ‘R‘ is difficult to quantify it will be vital to emphasise the importance of normalising and ensuring adherence to all measures even after ‘full lifting’ is achieved.” Got that? Masks need to stay even after Boris Johnson says ‘Lockdown is over‘.

It’s in this context that the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) enthusiastic promotion of the Chinese ‘smart face mask’ needs to be seen. It apparently reminds users when to wash it and checks if they’re wearing it properly. If too much carbon dioxide builds up inside, a phone alert reminds the wearer to catch a few breaths of fresh air. If the user forgets to put it on, the same phone app sends them a reminder to mask up.

This is not about public health, but all about making sure that measures introduced ostensibly to stop the spread of Covid-19 become permanent. Yes, once again the much-derided ‘crackpot conspiracy theorists’ of 2020 have been proved right.

Remember how last summer, the WEF was promoting a ‘Common Pass‘ health passport scheme, not just for international travel but for access to domestic events too? It would never happen, we were told. That’s ‘David Icke stuff’, was the condescending brush-off. Well, that too has come to pass – no pun intended.

To find out why all this is happening, all we have to do is to follow the money trail. All the way to Davos. What does the pro-permanent mask Imperial College have in common with the pro-permanent mask WEF? Answer: the pro-permanent mask Bill Gates.

Last month, Gates himself likened putting on a face mask to putting on a pair of trousers. “I just don’t think wearing a mask is such a deep inconvenience. I mean we ask people to wear pants. You know, why was this politicised?” Back in November, he made the same comparison. “We ask you to wear pants and, you know, no American says — or very few Americans say — that that’s, like, some terrible thing.”

But is masking up whenever we go out really the same as putting on a pair of trousers, to use the English term?

Of course it isn’t. Unless you’re Batman or The Lone Ranger, or another Saturday morning cinema superhero, or indeed a bank-robber, wearing a mask in public isn’t normal, and no amount of WEF-spin makes it so. But what walking about with pieces of black cloth over our mouths and noses does do, is maintain the levels of fear in the community.

If cases and deaths with Covid have plummeted to zero, but we want to make people live as if there is a permanent pandemic, to keep control over them, and to introduce ‘Covid-certification’ to restrict where they can and cannot go, how else can we keep Project Fear going without masks? It’s the only way we’d know that these were not ‘normal’ times. Which is, of course, precisely why they were introduced when deaths had dwindled to very low numbers.

Smart masks? The really smart thing is to get wise to the WEF’s dystopian agenda.

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.

April 9, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Alex Salmond declines to blame Russia for Salisbury incident

Press TV – April 7, 2021

The leader of the pro-independence Alba Party, Alex Salmond, has steadfastly refused to toe the British government’s line on the alleged poisoning of a Russian double agent in England in 2018.

Former Russian military intelligence officer, Segei Skripal, who betrayed his country by working for the UK’s MI6, was allegedly poisoned, alongside his daughter Yulia, with what the British government says was the Novichok nerve agent.

The alleged attack took place in the medieval cathedral city of Salisbury on March 04, 2018. Both Skripal and his daughter survived the alleged attack.

Speaking to BBC Good Morning Scotland on April 07, Salmond refused no less than four times to blame Russia for the alleged attack.

Faced by Salmond’s defiance, the show’s presenter, Gary Robertson, tried to undermine the former First Minister’s position by pointing out that he produces a show for the Russian TV network RT.

But Salmond hit back by saying: “I produce, along with Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, a program for Slainte Media which is then broadcast on the RT platform, as they’re perfectly entitled to do”.

“I can tell you from personal experience – I don’t know what your experience at the BBC is – not a single word of editorial instruction or even suggestion has been made to me from anyone at RT and the program stands on its own merits”, the former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) added.

Salmond and fellow Alba Party candidate Ahmed -Sheikh (who is a former SNP MP), host “The Alex Salmond Show” each week on RT.

On another subject, Salmond suggested that evidence of Russian interference in recent US elections was “very slight”.

Salmond’s position on these sensitive issues will alarm the British establishment which has identified Russia as an “active threat” to UK national security in its newly-released Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy.

Both the Alba Party and the SNP are committed to closing down the headquarters of the Royal Navy in Scotland.

The Faslane naval base, formally called Her Majesty’s Naval Base, Clyde, hosts the UK’s nuclear weapons capability.

April 7, 2021 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Militarism, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Hospital Medical Director: Sickness in NHS staff after Covid Vaccination is “Unprecedented”

The Daily Expose | April 4, 2021

The Medical Director of a hospital in the United Kingdom has bravely spoken out against the failure to report the reality of morbidity caused by the Covid-19 vaccination roll-out across the United Kingdom to NHS staff.

Dr Polyakova, who is the Medical Director of a hospital in Kent has said that the “levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented” among NHS staff, confirming that some are even suffering neurological symptoms which is having a “huge impact on the health service functioning”.

The doctor, who progressed into medical management of the hospital over the past three years says that she is struggling with the “failure to report” adverse reactions to the Covid vaccines among NHS staff, and clarified that the young and healthy are missing from work for weeks after receiving a dose of either the Pfizer or AstraZeneca experimental vaccine.

“Some even require medical treatment” Dr Polyakova said, “Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get the vaccine together”.

In response to the arising question of making Covid-19 vaccination compulsory for NHS staff, Dr Polyakova said –

“Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and staff are being encouraged to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health.

“I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid after vaccination and probably transmitting it. It is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission.

“So why are we doing it? There is no longitudinal safety data available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?”

Both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jab are only licensed for emergency use, as confirmed by Dr Polyakova. This means that the manufacturer of the vaccine, in this case either Pfizer or AstraZeneca, are not liable for any injury or ill-effect that may occur in the recipient of their product.

The Medical Director didn’t stop their though as she went on to attack the coercion and mandating of experimental medical treatments for NHS staff, comparing it to a Nazi dystopia –

“Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.

“Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.

“I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.

“What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?”

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

April 6, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , | 2 Comments

SAGE Document Reveals ‘Covert’ Propaganda to Scare British Into Staying Home in Lockdown

21st Century Wire | April 6, 2021

Once again, the UK government has been shown to have used ‘covert tactics’ in order to scare UK residents into staying at home for lockdown by increasing the ‘perceived threat’ of COVID’ rather than genuine science-backed risk assessment data, and also used ‘hard-hitting emotional messages’ designed to cower the public into complying with the government’s arbitrary diktats.

Due to the heightened level of public outrage, mainstream media outlets are finally being forced to admit what they have been systematically covering-up now for 12 months – that Government have been involved in active psychological and information warfare measures against their own population.

In a document presented to the UK government’s ‘SAGE’ confab, a scientific group meant to advise government on pandemic policies, it was revealed how technocrats sought to increase the ‘perceived threat’ of COVID-19 using aggressive psychological ‘hard-hitting emotional messages’ in order to brainwash the public into compliance.

Upon hearing the official admission, some psychology professionals have turned their sights on Downing Street, accusing bureaucrats of using “covert psychological strategies” in order to hype-up the threat of the virus, and offering no context as to the actual risk posed to the general public.

Government officials are accused of creating ‘a state of heightened anxiety’ which led to many people becoming ‘too frightened to attend hospital’.

This rebuke of the government’s active measures is given further credence by the fact that the majority of hospital beds in the UK remained largely empty in 2020, especially during the first few months of the ‘pandemic.’ This is especially relevant because it was at this same time when the government and mainstream media were relentlessly pushing out the idea that health services were ‘under threat’ of being overrun by Covid, only it never happened.

As a result of the government’s fear campaign, along with the overall throttling of the NHS, there have been an estimated 4.66 million people left waiting many months to begin even routine treatment, as well as thousands of pre-cancer screening appoints abandoned or pushed back – all because of the constant ramping-up of the fear of Covid.

The question still remains: will cabinet ministers be held to account for this unprecedented over-reach of state power?

The Mail Online reports…

Experts fear Britons have been the subject of an experiment in the use of tactics which operate ‘below their level of awareness,’ it was said.

They have now made a formal complaint to an organisation which will rule on whether Government advisers are guilty of a breach of ethics.

Downing street denies this, claiming it simply presented the facts.

Complainants point to a document handed to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies last March, when the pandemic began to rapidly grow in Britain.

The paper, written by Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, said:  ‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group, although levels of concern may be rising.

‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat.’

The document, seen by the Telegraph, allegedly then gave 14 options for improving compliance including ‘use media to increase sense of personal threat’, which they said would be highly effective but runs the risk of ‘negative’ side effects.

SAGE members have since claimed the British public have been ‘subjected to an unevaluated psychological experiment without being told that is what’s happening.’

They added that SPI-B reports are often not ‘challenged’ by SAGE because many of those involved are ‘not very well equipped to evaluate it.’

‘When someone from SPI-B is saying we need to ramp up the fear and keep it ramped up – there wasn’t much questioning of that at the beginning and most of the questioning came from external sources, not from within.’

SPI-B is described as providing behavioural science advice aimed at anticipating and helping people adhere to interventions that are recommended by medical or epidemiological experts.

(…) Last November, Sir Patrick Vallance admitted he had ‘regrets’ over frightening people with a doomsday dossier that forecasted as many as 4,000 Covid-19 deaths a day over winter and was used to justify a second national lockdown.

Number 10’s top scientific adviser made the comments alongside Professor Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, after the pair were hauled before MPs to defend SAGE’s modelling that also predicted hospitals would be overrun with virus patients by the end of this month.

During the grilling by members of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Labour MP Graham Stringer asked Sir Patrick if he believed he had frightened people with the bleak deaths data presented during Saturday night’s press briefing.

The Chief Scientific Adviser said: ‘I hope not and that’s certainly not the aim… I think I positioned that as a scenario from a couple of weeks ago, based on an assumption to try and get a new reasonable worst-case scenario. And if that didn’t come across then I regret that.

Continue this story at the Mail Online

April 6, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

A year of fear

By Dr Gary Sidley | The Critic | March 23, 2021

The British public’s widespread compliance with lockdown restrictions and the subsequent vaccine rollout has been the most remarkable aspect of the coronavirus crisis.

The removal of our basic freedoms — in the form of lockdowns, travel bans and mandatory mask wearing — have been passively accepted by the large majority of people. Furthermore, the proportion of the general public expressing a willingness to accept the Covid-19 vaccines has been greater in the UK than almost anywhere else in the world. But has the government achieved this widespread conformity through the unethical use of covert psychological strategies — “nudges” — in their messaging campaign?

A major contributor to the mass obedience of the British people is likely to have been the activities of government-employed psychologists working as part of the “Behavioural Insights Team” (BIT). The BIT was conceived in 2010 as “the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy.” In collaboration with governments and other stakeholders, the team aspire to use behavioural insights to “improve people’s lives and communities”. Several members of BIT, together with other psychologists, currently sit on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B), a subgroup of SAGE, which offers advice to the government about how to maximise the impact of its Covid-19 communications.

A comprehensive account of the psychological approaches deployed by BIT is provided by an Institute of Government document titled MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy, where it is claimed that these strategies can achieve “low cost, low pain ways of ‘nudging’ citizens … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act”. Several interventions of this type have been woven into the Covid-19 messaging campaign, including fear (inflating perceived threat levels), shame (conflating compliance with virtue) and peer pressure (portraying non-compliers as a deviant minority) – or “affect”, “ego” and “norms”, to use the language of behavioural science.

Behavioural scientists know that a frightened population is a compliant one, so this was exploited as a way of compelling us to abide by the coronavirus restrictions. The minutes of the SPI-B meeting on 22 March 2020 stated: “The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased … using hard-hitting emotional messaging.” Aided by the mainstream media, the British public were subsequently bombarded with fear-inducing information, images and mantras: Covid-19 daily death counts reported without context; inflated predictions of future casualties; recurrent footage of dying patients in Intensive Care Units; and scary slogans like, “If you go out you can spread it”, or “People will die”, often accompanied by images of emergency personnel wearing PPE.

We all strive to maintain a positive view of ourselves. Utilising this human tendency, behavioural scientists have recommended messaging that equates virtue with adherence to the Covid-19 restrictions, so that following the rules preserves the integrity of our egos while any deviation evokes shame. Examples of these nudges in action include: slogans such as, “Stay home, Protect the NHS, Save lives” and “Protect yourselves, Protect your loved ones”; TV advertisements where an actor tells us, “I wear a face covering to protect my mates”; the pre-orchestrated Clap for Carers ritual; ministers telling students not to “kill your gran”; and close-up images of acutely unwell hospital patients with the voice-over, “Can you look them in the eyes and tell them you’re doing all you can to stop the spread of coronavirus?”

And then there’s what the psychologists euphemistically refer to as “normative pressure”: awareness of the prevalent views and behaviour of our fellow citizens — through peer pressure and scapegoating — can prise us into compliance. The simplest example is ministers repeatedly telling us that the vast majority of people are “obeying the rules”. But normative pressure is less effective in changing the behaviour of the deviant minority if there is no visible indicator of pro-social conformity rooted in communities. The mandating of masks in summer 2020 — in the absence of strong evidence that they reduce viral transmission in the community — enabled the rule breakers to be instantly distinguished from the followers. Appearing unmasked in public places now felt comparable to failing to display the icon of a dominant religion while being among devout followers; even if no explicit challenge ensues, the implicit demand to conform is palpable.

The same covert strategies are now being used to promote the uptake of the Covid-19 vaccines. The tactic of fear inflation is evident in a recent NHS England document that recommends healthcare staff “leverage anticipated regret” on the over-65s cohort by telling them they are “over three times more likely to die”. The recommended follow-up statement is, “Think about how you will feel if you do not get vaccinated and end up with Covid-19?” For young people — who are at vanishingly small risk of suffering serious illness should they contract Covid-19 — shame is the selected tool from the behavioural-science armoury; the recommendation is that they should be told “normality can only return, for you and others, with your vaccination.” As for the healthcare staff who will administer the jabs, the psychological experts suggest an ego boost from being hailed as the, “latest ‘NHS Heroes’”.

So, what’s wrong with using these covert psychological strategies to improve compliance with public health policy?

In comparison to the government’s traditional tools of persuasion (such as information provision and rational argument) these methods of influence differ in their nature and subconscious mode of action. Consequently, three sources of ethical concern emerge: problems with the methods per se; problems with the goals to which they are applied; and problems with the lack of consent.

It is questionable whether a civilised society should knowingly increase the emotional discomfort of its citizens as a means of gaining their compliance. State scientists deploying fear, shame and scapegoating to change minds is an ethically dubious practice that in some respects resembles the tactics used by totalitarian regimes such as China, where the state inflicts pain on a subset of its population in an attempt to eliminate beliefs and behaviour they perceive to be deviant.

Another ethical issue associated with the methods of covert nudging used in the Covid-19 communications campaign concerns the unintended consequences. Shaming and scapegoating has emboldened some people to harass those unable or unwilling to wear a face covering. More disturbingly, fear inflation has led to many people being too scared to attend hospital with non-Covid illness, while many old people, rendered housebound by fear, will have died prematurely from loneliness. Collateral damage of this sort is likely to be responsible for many of the tens of thousands of excess non-Covid deaths in private homes. In a civilised society, is it morally acceptable to use psychological strategies that are associated with this level of collateral damage?

The perceived legitimacy of using covert psychological strategies to influence people may also depend upon the behavioural goals that are being pursued. It seems likely that a higher proportion of the general public would be comfortable with the government resorting to subconscious nudges to reduce violent crime – for example, to discourage young men from stabbing each other – as compared to the purpose of imposing unprecedented and non-evidenced public-health restrictions. Would British citizens have agreed to the furtive deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure as a way of levering compliance with lockdowns and mask mandates? Maybe they should be asked before the Government considers any future imposition of these techniques.

In 2010, the authors of the MINDSPACE document — one of whom is Dr David Halpern, a member of SAGE and the SPI-B — recognised the significant ethical dilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that impact subconsciously on the country’s citizens and emphasised the importance of consent. Indeed, they could not be clearer: “policymakers wishing to use these tools … need the approval of the public to do so.” They go on to suggest some practical ways of acquiring this consent, including the facilitation of “deliberative forums” where a representative sample of several hundred people are brought together for a day or more to explore an issue and reach a collective decision. I am unaware of any public consultation of this type being conducted to gain the public’s permission to use covert psychological strategies.

At an individual level, obtaining a recipient’s permission prior to an intervention is a long-established principle of ethical clinical practice. Informed consent is an essential precursor to any medical procedure, including vaccination. To ensure ethical integrity, healthcare staff should be encouraging each potential recipient to, consciously and rationally, weigh up the pros and cons of accepting the Covid-19 vaccine rather than nudging them towards compliance.

The covert psychological strategies incorporated into the state’s coronavirus information campaign have achieved their aims of inducing a majority of the population to obey the draconian public health restrictions and accept vaccination. The nature of the tactics deployed — with their subconscious modes of action and the emotional discomfort generated — do, however, raise some pressing concerns about the legitimacy of using these kinds of psychological techniques for this purpose. The government, and their expert advisors, are operating in morally murky waters. An open, public-wide debate about the ethical integrity of these approaches — and the extensive collateral damage associated with them — is urgently required.


Dr Gary Sidley is a retired clinical psychologist with over 30 years’ experience working for the NHS. He is a member of the Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART).

April 4, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment