Figure: weekly data from the Office of National Statistics for 2020, comparing total mortality per week with an estimated average from the previous five years.
2020 saw 14% more deaths than average, last year in England & Wales and that amounted to seventy-five thousand extra deaths. We here use the Office of National statistics figures, as it gives total weekly deaths, plus also for comparison an average value of corresponding weekly deaths over the previous five years.
That compares with the figure of ninety thousand deaths for the entire United Kingdom, due allegedly to covid-19.
We here ask and answer the question, what caused that excess of deaths? The answer will not be certain, but will be the simplest possible explanation. By Occam’s razor we are obliged to take it.
For the first quarter of last year, deaths in England and Wales were down: for whatever reason, overall weekly mortality was 3% below the yearly average. Then around the spring equinox on March 23rd Lockdown was announced and suddenly, deaths surged right up so that thousands of extra deaths started happening week after week. That continued all through April and May and then finally, in the first week of June Britons were allowed out again: with relief we could walk the streets and parks, cafes and pubs opened up again.
Those months of Lockdown saw fifty-nine thousand excess deaths (see graph). That comes from counting the eleven weeks ending 27 March to the 5th June, as being the lockdown period.
The question arises as to what caused them? Could it have been, for example, the shock? The month of April averaged ninety percent more deaths than usual! Then May was not quite so bad, as folk got used to the grim new reality.
In the weeks after the Lockdown i.e. after the first week of June the whole excess of deaths suddenly vanished. Over the next four months deaths remained exactly average compared to previous years.
The graph shows this distinct, three-stage process.
These figures suggest that it is the lockdown itself and not any virus, that caused the excess deaths.
We’re here reminded of a careful survey done last May which found that, in all countries with reliable death-figures, their increase in mortality began after the lockdown was imposed and not before. There is a very simple difference between cause and effect: the cause comes first, before the effect!
A second Lockdown was imposed over the month of November. This lacked the same terror and shock value of the first and so only reached a net 18% excess of mortality: for the five weeks from week ending 6 November to that of 4th December there were nine thousand excess deaths, compared to the seasonal average.
After the autumn equinox as the nights grew longer the government again started to terrorise the population with talk of the ‘dark winter’ to come. Somehow they knew that a ‘second wave’ was coming, and so there would have to be a ‘second lockdown’ and no Christmas. Here’s what I said in a podcast on 20th October:
They are trying to resuscitate another big scare, trying to claim there is a second wave … come this autumn, they have started drumming up fear again, they have imposed these levels of Lockdown which are rather terrifying. A lot of stress they are putting on people, I’ve been wondering, are the deaths going to go up again like last time?
Did that happen? The figures show as before a surge around the time of the lockdown and just before it, however this time it did not vanish after the lockdown. That’s because there was not really any easing up. On the contrary yet more draconian measures were announced, with the unheard-of measure of police stopping people walking outdoors, to ask them if they had good reason to be out of their house? Meeting friends was forbidden, etc. That pressure pushed up the mortality even more and we here especially note the ‘Christmas week’ ending 25th December, with a whopping 45% excess mortality. That is not a merry Christmas, it’s an extra three and a half thousand people popping off (as compared to previous years) in a week, caused presumably by shock and despair of Xmas being cancelled. The week after that it was still very high, 26% excess, as folk faced the bleak new year.
It helps to express that excess mortality as overall monthly means, for the last few months of 2020. Thus taking each month as a whole and selecting four weeks of data for each month:
Slowly the excess deaths (comparing, as before, with previous years) have increased through the autumn and winter. The month of December had ten thousand extra deaths. Should one take the government’s view, that these deaths were caused by the CV19 virus, and that the increasingly severe restrictions were a necessary response to ‘contain’ the spread of this virus? A simpler hypothesis would be that there is no virus killing people, whereas the stress of bankruptcy, solitude, loneliness, etc. imposed by government edicts really has been killing people. Thus for example ‘tier 4’ was announced on 19th December for large parts of England and that resulted in the highest mortality for the week following. That knockout blow to everyone’s Christmas – never banned since the days of Oliver Cromwell – had the deep impact, driving up the mortality index.
Overall it would appear to be the government’s lockdown policy that has been killing people and not some new disease. Stress, loneliness, fear and despair have been causing the excess of deaths: together with emptying out of hospitals, especially of old folk and cancellation of normal services because of the ‘pandemic.’ If the government knows this, then it is a population-reduction program.
A recent US CDC report agreed with the approach we’ve here taken, that the significance of CV19 can only be appreciated in terms of total mortality. Published on the John Hopkins University website on 22nd November (but soon removed), it endorses the view that no virus is killing people, any more than normal flu, whereas deaths from other causes are being re-classified as Covid19:
According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”
From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.
She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.
After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.
Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.
“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.
Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.
These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States…
When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.
This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below , the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.
Base on this analysis, the best way to end the ongoing mass-killing of elderly Britons would be to terminate the lockdowns and resume normal life. As Dr Simone Gold (of Frontline Doctors ) well explained, CV19 is just ‘killing’ elderly people who were about to die anyhow. It cannot be shown that ‘having’ CV19 i.e. testing PCR-‘positive’ contributed to shortening their life. So that isn’t a causal connection, i.e. the alleged illness has not ‘caused’ their death. That’s why the age-distribution of CV-19 is indistinguishable from that of the normal population.
The average age of death in England & Wales is 81.5 years, while the average age of ‘Covid-19 fatalities’ is 82.4 years (ONS data). What this tells us is very simple: the disease does not exist.
The concept of PCR ‘testing’ has always been fraudulent. The so-called PCR ‘test’ multiplies up fragments of nucleotide-chains and the number of ‘positive’ cases depends on the multiplication factor used as well as how many persons are tested. There will never come a time when the virus is ‘cured’ or ‘solved’ or whatever people imagine the government is trying to do (if it knows!), such that the PCR test ceases to generate ‘positive’ tests. No-one will ever give you evidence that people who test ‘positive’ get ill more often than others. Is there an aim of government policy, aside from terrorising the populace? Is it to kill the virus? That can never happen because the virus isn’t alive.
The World Health Organization has now backtracked over the PCR ‘test’, saying (January 13th) it is merely a diagnostic tool that can assist. It now advises –
Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.
In other words, a single PCR test should not be used for diagnosing Sars-Cov-2 infection. It’s merely a guide!
Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.
So we finally have it that the PCR cannot be relied upon a diagnostic test. Which is exactly what its inventor Kary Mullis said. So forget all of the figures you’ve heard about ‘cases’ and ‘covid deaths’ – they cannot be relied upon.
If one did want to believe there was a disease associated with this virus, then surely we’d agree with Dr Alexander Myasnikov, appointed last year as Russia’s chief medical advisor. In an interview he explained how the world had greatly over-reacted to the CV19 story and death numbers in the West were greatly over-counted. He added:
“It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality.”
Thus the former Chief Medical Officer of Ontario has recently challenged his government’s policy saying, “We’re Being Locked-down for an Infection Fatality Rate of Less than 0.2%?” and the lockdown is not “supported by strong science.” He here means, that for those who test PCR-positive one in five hundred will die. The time-period here involved needs to be defined, eg it could be one month: we all die, and given the median age of alleged-CV19 deaths is around 80 that could well be a normal rate of mortality – especially if they are PCR-testing everyone admitted to hospitals.
Last November a Cornish nurse went public, saying the hospital wards had been empty over months when it was claimed they were overflowing. She said whenever they had flu patients they were classified as Covid: ‘flu and Covid cases are now recorded as ‘the same thing’ on death certificates.’ . That wouldn’t be necessary if the disease really existed. Not surprisingly, the flu this winter has mysteriously vanished. One woman who walked round her local hospital filming its empty wards was arrested by police entering her home the next day.
The virus itself cannot be shown to exist, by which we mean that it cannot be reliably differentiated from all the other normal coronaviruses, that have been with us since time began. It has never been isolated, let’s be clear about that. Last April an EU science department admitted:
“No virus isolates with a quantified amount of the SARS-CoV-2 are currently available …“
And the same thing was echoed a few months later by the US Centre for Disease Control:
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
In other words, nobody can hold a test-tube or petri-dish and say, ‘Here is COVID-19.’ Published gene-sequences of the alleged virus are mere hypothetic constructs. Yes some disease broke out in Wuhan in November 2019 and yes the Chinese authorities published a gene-sequence allegedly of it, but so what?