offguardian--2020-05-05--COVID 19 is a Statistical Nonsense

COVID 19 is a Statistical Nonsense

The mortality statistics for COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media ( MSM ) .
Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown ( house arrest ) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19 syndrome is the only sensible reaction .
Apparently , only the most lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us .
The COVID 19 mortality statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing ( State surveillance ) apps .
This will help the vaccinated to secure their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and enable them to prove they are allowed to exist in the post-COVID 19 society , whenever the State demands to see their authorisation .
But how reliable are these statistics ?
What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the confines of our incarceration ?
Do they reveal the harsh reality of an unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they have been manipulated , inflated , fudged and exploited tell us something else ?
The Once Reliable Office Of National Statistics In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wales , under normal circumstances , a qualified doctor needs to record the cause of death on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death ( MCCD ) .
They must then notify the Medical Examiner for a corroborating opinion .
Providing the doctor is clear on the cause of death and no irregularities or suspicions are noted , if the Medical Examiner concurs , there is no need to refer the death to a coroner .
The second opinion of the Medical Examiner ( another qualified doctor ) was introduced in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses .
The mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman , and doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Trust , covered up crimes and widespread malpractice by improperly completing MCCDs .
Today , once the Medical Examiner agrees , they then discuss the death with a qualified informant .
This is usually someone who knows the deceased .
It is an opportunity , more often than not , for a family member or friend to discuss any concerns about the suggested cause of death .
If no further issues are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued to the informant , the Local Registrar notified and the death recorded .
Registered deaths have been recorded in England and Wales since 1837 .
From 1911 onward the cause of death has been coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) .
Maintaining registration records was the responsibility of the General Register Office until 1970 when it became a department of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys ( OPCS ) .
In 1996 the OPCS merged with the Central Statistical Office ( CSO ) to form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
There have been some tweaks and legislative changes to the system over the years .
Technology has sped things up a bit , but essentially the simple process of recording registered deaths has changed little over the last century .
The ONS have been accurately recording registered deaths in England and Wales for more than 23 years .
From a statistical perspective this consistent , verifiable system has allowed meaningful analysis to inform public health practice and policy for decades .
The inbuilt safeguards , maintained and improved over the years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most reliable mortality statistics in the world .
They record all registered deaths no matter where they occurred in England and Wales .
Whether the deceased died in hospital , a care home or in the community , once registration is complete the ONS add it to their statistics .
For weekly statistics the ONS week runs from Saturday to Friday and the statistics are released 11 days after the week ending date .
There may be an additional lag for a small number of more complex cases .
However , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the registration of the death in the week it was notified .
The ONS also release mortality statistics on a monthly , quarterly and annual basis for comparison .
This does not suit a hungry MSM eager to sensationalise reported COVID 19 deaths .
Nor does it serve the immediate interests of State officials who want the public to accept their own house arrest .
Consequently the MSM have reported COVID 19 mortality statistics from a variety of sources .
Some from the NHS , some from the Department of Health and Social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ONS .
Now the Care Quality Commission have also been thrown into the mix .
Ultimately , all of these deaths will be registered .
The ONS will record them and it will be possible to know how many died , the causes of death and the trends identified .
Except in the case of COVID 19 .
The Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal assent on March 25th .
This had significant implications for the registration of deaths and the accuracy of ONS data in relation to COVID 19 .
Not only did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any claims of negligence during the lockdown , it also removed the need for a jury led inquest .
Effectively , only in the case of death from the notifiable disease of COVID 19 .
Worrying as these elements of the legislation are , they are just part of a raft of changes singling out registered COVID 19 deaths as unusually imprecise .
The NHS issued guidance to assist doctors to comply with the new legislation .
Any doctor can sign the MCCD .
There is no need for the scrutiny of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or any other doctor , can sign the MCCD alone .
The safeguards introduced in 2016 were removed , but only in the case of COVID 19 .
Doctors do not necessarily need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD .
If it is considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the MCCD , providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19 , any other qualified doctor can sign the death certificate as a COVID 19 death .
There is no requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD .
A video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient ’ s death , is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19 .
If that were not tenuous enough , as long as the signing doctor believes the death was from COVID 19 , potentially absent any examination at all , perhaps simply by reviewing the patient ’ s case notes , if a coroner agrees , a COVID 19 death can still be registered .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fait accomplis .
On the 26th March the UK State released guidance from the Chief Coroner .
This was intended as advice to all coroners in cases of COVID 19 referral .
There were some notable changes to normal coronal procedures .
Paragraph 5 strongly reminded coroners of their obligation to maintain judicial conduct .
It stated : This thinly veiled threat to coroners made it clear that speaking out about any concerns would be considered a breech of judicial conduct .
A career-ending act it would seem .
The NHS guidance advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deceased prior to registration of death , a referral to the coroner must be made .
This is a procedural recommendation , not a legal requirement .
A legal requirement is only applicable in cases of unknown or suspicious causes of death .
In turn , the Chief Coroner ’ s guidance states : “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealt with via the MCCD process.
” The Coronavirus Act 2020 also meant that a qualified informant , who agrees with the cause of death on the MCCD , no longer needed to be anyone acquainted with the deceased .
A hospital official , someone who is ‘ in charge of a body ’ or a funeral director can perform this vital function .
The Chief Coroner advised : “ For registration : where next of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures , the arrangement for relatives ( etc ) should be for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for registration purposes .
The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.
” Most relatives , or someone acquainted with the deceased , will be following self-isolation procedures .
They will almost certainly be terrified of contracting COVID19 because they have just been told their loved one or friend died from it .
Furthermore , the Coronavirus Act has effectively placed them under house arrest .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t seen the patient , while they were alive , no further inquiry is necessary .
The qualified informant can be someone who has neither met the deceased nor knows anything about the circumstances surrounding their death .
In this situation , but only for COVID19 deaths , it is fine to assume the death was from the disease .
If you , the coroner , don ’ t like the idea , don ’ t make a fuss .
Just sign the damn thing or else .
This quite bizarre death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance to doctors signing MCCDs .
Not only is there no need for an examination to pronounce death from COVID19 , nor is there any necessity for a positive test or even an indicative CT scan .
In their guidance the ONS advised doctors on what constitutes an acceptable underlying cause of death .
When mortality statistics are used for research it is usually the most relevant factor .
The vast majority of COVID19 deaths reported by the State and the MSM also reflect its identification as the underlying cause .
The World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as : “ The disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.
” For COVID19 , this determination can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has never met the deceased .
Quite possibly following nothing more than a video link consultation or a case note review of symptoms .
The problem is the symptoms of COVID19 are largely indistinguishable from a range of other respiratory illnesses .
A study from the University of Toronto found : “ The symptoms can vary , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ present with fever , cough , fatigue , and a host of other symptoms .
The symptoms may be similar to patients with influenza or the common cold.
” Nor is there any requirement for a post mortem to confirm the presence of COVID19 .
Guidance from 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.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the direct cause is imperative to establish the fact .
Just because someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 ( SC2 ) virus it doesn ’ t mean they developed the associated syndrome of COVID19 .
The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine found that anything between 5 % – 80 % of people who tested positive for SC2 did not have any symptoms of COVID19 .
Asymptomatic people do not have a disease which impacts their health in the short term .
Even for those who did test positive for SC2 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death are dubious in an unknown number of cases .
Following the Coronavirus Act , in keeping with advice from the NHS , the ONS advised doctors : “ 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.
” This isn ’ t unique to COVID19 .
Doctors are required to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their knowledge and belief ” even when test results may not yet be available .
The difference in the case of COVID19 is that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory opinions and every opportunity to question the cause of death have been removed .
In addition , the need to complete Cremation form 5 , requiring a second medical opinion , has been suspended for all COVID19 deaths .
Given that post mortem confirmation is also extremely unlikely and agreement from a coroner is all but assured , this means possible COVID19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence they ever had the disease .
In light of all the other registration oddities for determining COVID19 mortality , the direct causation , proving COVID19 was the underlying cause of death , appears extremely doubtful .
We just don ’ t know how many people have died from COVID19 .
We are told many people have , but we can not state with any certainty what the numbers are .
Neither can the ONS .
Obviously concerned about the implications , the Royal College of Pathologists ( RCPath ) have called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Service Journal reports that the RCPath expects a detailed investigation into causes of death due to the degree of uncertainty .
The overwhelming majority of medical and care staff , coroners , pathologists , ONS statisticians and funeral directors have no desire to mislead anyone .
However , in the case of COVID19 deaths , the State has created a registration system so ambiguous it is virtually useless .
The statistical product recorded by the ONS , despite their best efforts , is correspondingly vacuous .
This hasn ’ t stopped the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death as proof of the deadliness of COVID19 .
Claims of COVID19 as the underlying cause of death should be treated with considerable scepticism .
Initially the daily reports were based upon the figures of COVID19 deaths released by the NHS via the DHSC .
These were the numbers with positive test results .
The ONS also recorded positive test registrations from the NHS , care settings and the community .
As discussed , a positive test for SC2 doesn ’ t necessarily mean you suffered any health impact from COVID19 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a varying degree of reliability .
Nonetheless , the ONS figures from all settings , were higher than those reported by the MSM and the State in their daily briefings .
However , the reliance upon positive tests changed on March 29th .
The State instructed the ONS not only to record all registered COVID19 deaths , where positive tests results were known , but also where COVID19 was merely suspected .
In combination with the possibly spurious attribution from hospitals , this ‘ mention ’ of COVID19 , further distanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death .
This prompted a significant increase in the COVID19 fatalities reported by the ONS .
Not because more people were dying from it , but because the categorisation of COVID19 deaths had changed .
Any mention of COVID19 anywhere on the death certificate , regardless of other comorbidities , such as heart failure or cancer , were now recorded as registered COVID19 deaths by the ONS .
This addition of claimed COVID19 deaths has punctuated the ONS data throughout the outbreak .
While we are told by the MSM that these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID19 mortality , in truth we are moving further away from any meaningful record .
The evidence suggests the methodology has been altered at opportune moments to inflate and maintain the mortality statistics .
Just after the virus peak of infection and the start of the lockdown , the State instructed the ONS to include suspected “ mentions ” of COVID19 .
Again , as the recorded numbers of deaths were dropping , the State started releasing more figures from the care sector .
From April 29th they have introduced additional figures provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
If the figures from the NHS are at best questionable , the figures from the CQC run the risk of moving us into fantasy land .
All the same problems of decedents not being seen , video consultations , lack of corroborative medical opinion and so forth remain .
However , in care settings the onus for signing MCCDs shifts from hospital doctors to General Practitioners ( GP ’ s ) .
The CQC is the independent regulator of health and social care in England .
During the COVID19 outbreak it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care providers to notify them of suspected cases .
It has also suspended all inspections .
From the 29th April the CQC will provide statistics to the ONS where a “ care home provider has stated COVID-19 as a suspected or confirmed cause of death.
” This notification is made online via the CQC ’ s Provider Portal .
Provisional figures will be included in the ONS daily updates .
The CQC is tasked with making sure decedents from care homes who died in hospital are removed from the reports before submitting them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will occur .
We can only hope statisticians will be extremely diligent .
The ONS has reported what these statistics from the CQC will be based upon .
Frankly , it makes jaw dropping reading .
The ONS state : “ The inclusion of a death in the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement of the care home provider , which may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result , or be reflected in the death certification.
” Most care home providers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding whether or not the decedent had COVID19 may well be the result of a once weekly phone call with a GP .
Guidance to GP ’ s from NHS England states that Possible COVID19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online .
This is in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice , in relation to COVID19 , which states : There is no validation built into the quality of data on collection .
Fields may be left blank or may contain information that is contradictory , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of publication .
Most pertinent to this release are place of death and whether the death was as a result of confirmed or suspected coronavirus .
This is the system the CQC will use to collect the data for the ONS reports .
Once someone , either in a care home or cared for in the community , is assumed to have died of COVID19 , based upon the best guess of the care provider following a chat with a local GP , in keeping with the process we have already discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a COVID19 death .
The ONS will add their death to the COVID19 statistics and the State and the MSM will report them to the public as confirmed COVID19 mortality .
How anyone can consider the statistics from care providers an accurate and reliable record of COVID19 deaths is difficult to envisage .
Nonetheless , that is what we are asked to believe .
All we are able to identify with any certainty are the total number of of all deaths , called all cause mortality , reported by the ONS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused those deaths during the COVID19 outbreak .
The State has presided over a truly remarkable bastardisation of the ONS data for COVID19 .
This has not only rendered records of COVID19 deaths a statistical black hole but , during the claimed pandemic , has also made the ONS data for other causes of excess mortality practically unknowable .
Especially for the ONS , any chance of accurately separating COVID19 deaths from other causes of mortality has been completely obliterated by State diktat .
For the first time in their history the ONS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly dubious registered causes of death .
However , they remain our best hope of knowing how many people have passed away .
In the meantime , while we wait for the ONS data to emerge , the MSM are reporting every COVID19 death from any source they can find .
Some are vaguely confirmed and some not .
They are also reporting suspected COVID19 deaths from care homes , provisional figures from the NHS , the CQC and then the same figures again from the DHSC and later the ONS .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back of this hodgepodge of statistical irrelevance , is designed to convince the public of the severity of the outbreak in the UK .
There is clearly high excess mortality at the moment .
Thanks to the lockdown , this is happening while the NHS is essentially closed to everyone other than suspected COVID19 patients .
Early studies have already predicted a significant health impact from the lack of essential health care caused by the lockdown .
People requiring treatment for a range of other potentially fatal conditions aren ’ t getting it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty in the daily briefing on April 30th : “ …You have the direct deaths from coronavirus but also indirect deaths .
Part of which is caused by the NHS and public health services not being able to do what they normally can to look after people with other conditions….It is therefore important…..to do the other important things like urgent cancer care , elective surgery and all the other thing like screening….which we need to do to keep people healthy.
” How many people have died of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only to be registered as COVID19 deaths ?
We just don ’ t know and the ONS have no way of finding out .
However we do know , thanks to the ONS , the total all cause mortality as a percentage of population in England and Wales over recent decades .
This analysis shows us , while excess mortality this year is high , it is by no means unprecedented .
In fact , as a percentage of population , it is notably lower to the comparable years of 1995 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ none of these years necessitated the shut down of the economy nor the dire health consequences of closing the NHS to all but a few patients .
Between 27th March and 17th April ( ONS weeks 14,15 & 16 ) the ONS registered 25,932 additional deaths above the statistical recent 5 year norm .
Of these 11,427 recorded COVID19 as the sole mentioned underlying cause .
We have just explored the considerable doubt about this attribution .
However , if we accept this figure , it means the remaining 14,505 people died with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approximately 56 % of additional excess mortality is attributable to something else , either in addition to or entirely separate from suggested COVID19 .
Given this inexplicable Spring mortality , it seems highly likely these are at least some of the indirect deaths the UK ’ s Chief Medical Officer spoke of .
To claim all these excess deaths are the result of COVID19 , as the State and MSM persistently do , is without any justification whatsoever .
It is not possible to identify how many people have died as a direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of deaths or the resultant statistics .
This is not the fault of medical practitioners or statisticians .
It is caused by a State response to a claimed pandemic which has rendered the most crucial processes , and the data gleaned from them , a statistical nonsense .

The mortality statistics for COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media (MSM). Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown (house arrest) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19 syndrome is the only sensible reaction.
Apparently, only the most lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us.
The COVID 19 mortality statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing (State surveillance) apps. This will help the vaccinated to secure their very own immunity passports (identity papers) and enable them to prove they are allowed to exist in the post-COVID 19 society, whenever the State demands to see their authorisation.
But how reliable are these statistics? What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the confines of our incarceration? Do they reveal the harsh reality of an unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they have been manipulated, inflated, fudged and exploited tell us something else?
The Once Reliable Office Of National Statistics
In order to register a death in England and Wales, under normal circumstances, a qualified doctor needs to record the cause of death on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD).
They must then notify the Medical Examiner for a corroborating opinion. Providing the doctor is clear on the cause of death and no irregularities or suspicions are noted, if the Medical Examiner concurs, there is no need to refer the death to a coroner.
The second opinion of the Medical Examiner (another qualified doctor) was introduced in 2016 following a series of high profile systemic abuses. The mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman, and doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Trust, covered up crimes and widespread malpractice by improperly completing MCCDs.
Today, once the Medical Examiner agrees, they then discuss the death with a qualified informant. This is usually someone who knows the deceased. It is an opportunity, more often than not, for a family member or friend to discuss any concerns about the suggested cause of death. If no further issues are raised, the death certificate can be issued to the informant, the Local Registrar notified and the death recorded.
Registered deaths have been recorded in England and Wales since 1837. From 1911 onward the cause of death has been coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Maintaining registration records was the responsibility of the General Register Office until 1970 when it became a department of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). In 1996 the OPCS merged with the Central Statistical Office (CSO) to form the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
There have been some tweaks and legislative changes to the system over the years.
Technology has sped things up a bit, but essentially the simple process of recording registered deaths has changed little over the last century. The ONS have been accurately recording registered deaths in England and Wales for more than 23 years.
From a statistical perspective this consistent, verifiable system has allowed meaningful analysis to inform public health practice and policy for decades. The inbuilt safeguards, maintained and improved over the years, means the ONS provide some of the most reliable mortality statistics in the world.
They record all registered deaths no matter where they occurred in England and Wales. Whether the deceased died in hospital, a care home or in the community, once registration is complete the ONS add it to their statistics.
For weekly statistics the ONS week runs from Saturday to Friday and the statistics are released 11 days after the week ending date. There may be an additional lag for a small number of more complex cases. However, all are eventually resolved and the ONS record the registration of the death in the week it was notified. The ONS also release mortality statistics on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for comparison.
This does not suit a hungry MSM eager to sensationalise reported COVID 19 deaths. Nor does it serve the immediate interests of State officials who want the public to accept their own house arrest.
Consequently the MSM have reported COVID 19 mortality statistics from a variety of sources. Some from the NHS, some from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and eventually the ONS.
Now the Care Quality Commission have also been thrown into the mix.
Ultimately, all of these deaths will be registered. The ONS will record them and it will be possible to know how many died, the causes of death and the trends identified.
Except in the case of COVID 19.
The Vague Case Of A COVID 19 Death
The Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal assent on March 25th. This had significant implications for the registration of deaths and the accuracy of ONS data in relation to COVID 19.
Not only did the act indemnify all NHS doctors against any claims of negligence during the lockdown, it also removed the need for a jury led inquest. Effectively, only in the case of death from the notifiable disease of COVID 19. Worrying as these elements of the legislation are, they are just part of a raft of changes singling out registered COVID 19 deaths as unusually imprecise.
The NHS issued guidance to assist doctors to comply with the new legislation. Any doctor can sign the MCCD. There is no need for the scrutiny of a second Medical Examiner. The Medical Examiner, or any other doctor, can sign the MCCD alone. The safeguards introduced in 2016 were removed, but only in the case of COVID 19.
Doctors do not necessarily need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD. If it is considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the MCCD, providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19, any other qualified doctor can sign the death certificate as a COVID 19 death.
There is no requirement for any signing doctor to have even seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD. A video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient’s death, is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19.
If that were not tenuous enough, as long as the signing doctor believes the death was from COVID 19, potentially absent any examination at all, perhaps simply by reviewing the patient’s case notes, if a coroner agrees, a COVID 19 death can still be registered.
The coroner’s agreement is practically a fait accomplis. On the 26th March the UK State released guidance from the Chief Coroner. This was intended as advice to all coroners in cases of COVID 19 referral.
There were some notable changes to normal coronal procedures. Paragraph 5 strongly reminded coroners of their obligation to maintain judicial conduct. It stated:
The Chief Coroner cannot envisage a situation in the current pandemic where a coroner should be engaging in interviews with the media or making any public statements to the press.”
This thinly veiled threat to coroners made it clear that speaking out about any concerns would be considered a breech of judicial conduct. A career-ending act it would seem.
The NHS guidance advised that if no signing doctor has seen the deceased prior to registration of death, a referral to the coroner must be made. This is a procedural recommendation, not a legal requirement. A legal requirement is only applicable in cases of unknown or suspicious causes of death. In turn, the Chief Coroner’s guidance states:
“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.”
The Coronavirus Act 2020 also meant that a qualified informant, who agrees with the cause of death on the MCCD, no longer needed to be anyone acquainted with the deceased. A hospital official, someone who is ‘in charge of a body’ or a funeral director can perform this vital function. The Chief Coroner advised:
“For registration: where next of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures, the arrangement for relatives (etc) should be for an alternative informant who has not been in contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for registration purposes. The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.”
Most relatives, or someone acquainted with the deceased, will be following self-isolation procedures. They will almost certainly be terrified of contracting COVID19 because they have just been told their loved one or friend died from it. Furthermore, the Coronavirus Act has effectively placed them under house arrest.
In other words, if the MCCD signing doctor hasn’t seen the patient, while they were alive, no further inquiry is necessary. The qualified informant can be someone who has neither met the deceased nor knows anything about the circumstances surrounding their death.
In this situation, but only for COVID19 deaths, it is fine to assume the death was from the disease. If you, the coroner, don’t like the idea, don’t make a fuss. Just sign the damn thing or else.
Impacting The COVID19 Statistics
This quite bizarre death registration process compelled the ONS to issue guidance to doctors signing MCCDs. Not only is there no need for an examination to pronounce death from COVID19, nor is there any necessity for a positive test or even an indicative CT scan.
In their guidance the ONS advised doctors on what constitutes an acceptable underlying cause of death. When mortality statistics are used for research it is usually the most relevant factor. The vast majority of COVID19 deaths reported by the State and the MSM also reflect its identification as the underlying cause.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) define this as:
“The disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.”
For COVID19, this determination can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has never met the deceased. Quite possibly following nothing more than a video link consultation or a case note review of symptoms.
The problem is the symptoms of COVID19 are largely indistinguishable 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.”
Nor is there any requirement for a post mortem to confirm the presence of COVID19. Guidance from 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.”
Clear causation between the underlying cause and the direct cause is imperative to establish the fact. Just because someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 (SC2) virus it doesn’t mean they developed the associated syndrome of COVID19.
The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine found that anything between 5% – 80% of people who tested positive for SC2 did not have any symptoms of COVID19. Asymptomatic people do not have a disease which impacts their health in the short term. Even for those who did test positive for SC2, claims that this was the underlying cause of death are dubious in an unknown number of cases.
Following the Coronavirus Act, in keeping with advice from the NHS, the ONS advised doctors:
“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.”
This isn’t unique to COVID19. Doctors are required to complete MCCDs “to the best of their knowledge and belief” even when test results may not yet be available. The difference in the case of COVID19 is that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory opinions and every opportunity to question the cause of death have been removed.
In addition, the need to complete Cremation form 5, requiring a second medical opinion, has been suspended for all COVID19 deaths. Given that post mortem confirmation is also extremely unlikely and agreement from a coroner is all but assured, this means possible COVID19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence they ever had the disease.
In light of all the other registration oddities for determining COVID19 mortality, the direct causation, proving COVID19 was the underlying cause of death, appears extremely doubtful. We just don’t know how many people have died from COVID19. We are told many people have, but we cannot state with any certainty what the numbers are. Neither can the ONS.
Obviously concerned about the implications, the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) have called for a systemic post outbreak review. The Health Service Journal reports that the RCPath expects a detailed investigation into causes of death due to the degree of uncertainty.
Statistically It Gets Worse
The overwhelming majority of medical and care staff, coroners, pathologists, ONS statisticians and funeral directors have no desire to mislead anyone. However, in the case of COVID19 deaths, the State has created a registration system so ambiguous it is virtually useless. The statistical product recorded by the ONS, despite their best efforts, is correspondingly vacuous.
This hasn’t stopped the State and the MSM from reporting every death as proof of the deadliness of COVID19. Claims of COVID19 as the underlying cause of death should be treated with considerable scepticism.
Initially the daily reports were based upon the figures of COVID19 deaths released by the NHS via the DHSC. These were the numbers with positive test results. The ONS also recorded positive test registrations from the NHS, care settings and the community.
As discussed, a positive test for SC2 doesn’t necessarily mean you suffered any health impact from COVID19. In addition, the test itself has proved to have a varying degree of reliability.
Nonetheless, the ONS figures from all settings, were higher than those reported by the MSM and the State in their daily briefings. However, the reliance upon positive tests changed on March 29th.
The State instructed the ONS not only to record all registered COVID19 deaths, where positive tests results were known, but also where COVID19 was merely suspected. In combination with the possibly spurious attribution from hospitals, this ‘mention’ of COVID19, further distanced the statistics from clear, confirmed causes of death.
This prompted a significant increase in the COVID19 fatalities reported by the ONS. Not because more people were dying from it, but because the categorisation of COVID19 deaths had changed. Any mention of COVID19 anywhere on the death certificate, regardless of other comorbidities, such as heart failure or cancer, were now recorded as registered COVID19 deaths by the ONS.
This addition of claimed COVID19 deaths has punctuated the ONS data throughout the outbreak. While we are told by the MSM that these new figures better reflect the reality of COVID19 mortality, in truth we are moving further away from any meaningful record.
The evidence suggests the methodology has been altered at opportune moments to inflate and maintain the mortality statistics. Just after the virus peak of infection and the start of the lockdown, the State instructed the ONS to include suspected “mentions” of COVID19. Again, as the recorded numbers of deaths were dropping, the State started releasing more figures from the care sector. From April 29th they have introduced additional figures provided by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
If the figures from the NHS are at best questionable, the figures from the CQC run the risk of moving us into fantasy land. All the same problems of decedents not being seen, video consultations, lack of corroborative medical opinion and so forth remain. However, in care settings the onus for signing MCCDs shifts from hospital doctors to General Practitioners (GP’s).
The CQC is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. During the COVID19 outbreak it has not required care homes or community care providers to notify them of suspected cases. It has also suspended all inspections.
From the 29th April the CQC will provide statistics to the ONS where a “care home provider has stated COVID-19 as a suspected or confirmed cause of death.” This notification is made online via the CQC’s Provider Portal. Provisional figures will be included in the ONS daily updates.
The CQC is tasked with making sure decedents from care homes who died in hospital are removed from the reports before submitting them to the ONS. Otherwise massive duplication will occur. We can only hope statisticians will be extremely diligent.
The ONS has reported what these statistics from the CQC will be based upon. Frankly, it makes jaw dropping reading. The ONS state:
“The inclusion of a death in the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement of the care home provider, which may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result, or be reflected in the death certification.”
Most care home providers are not medically trained. Their judgement regarding whether or not the decedent had COVID19 may well be the result of a once weekly phone call with a GP. Guidance to GP’s from NHS England states that Possible COVID19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online.
This is in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice, in relation to COVID19, which states:
Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.”
The ONS add:
There is no validation built into the quality of data on collection. Fields may be left blank or may contain information that is contradictory, and this may not be resolved at the point of publication. Most pertinent to this release are place of death and whether the death was as a result of confirmed or suspected coronavirus.
This is the system the CQC will use to collect the data for the ONS reports. Once someone, either in a care home or cared for in the community, is assumed to have died of COVID19, based upon the best guess of the care provider following a chat with a local GP, in keeping with the process we have already discussed, their MCCD will be signed off as a COVID19 death.
The ONS will add their death to the COVID19 statistics and the State and the MSM will report them to the public as confirmed COVID19 mortality.
How anyone can consider the statistics from care providers an accurate and reliable record of COVID19 deaths is difficult to envisage. Nonetheless, that is what we are asked to believe.
The State And MSM COVID19 Fudge
All we are able to identify with any certainty are the total number of of all deaths, called all cause mortality, reported by the ONS. We cannot be confident about what caused those deaths during the COVID19 outbreak.
The State has presided over a truly remarkable bastardisation of the ONS data for COVID19. This has not only rendered records of COVID19 deaths a statistical black hole but, during the claimed pandemic, has also made the ONS data for other causes of excess mortality practically unknowable.
Especially for the ONS, any chance of accurately separating COVID19 deaths from other causes of mortality has been completely obliterated by State diktat. For the first time in their history the ONS are reporting a relatively large number of highly dubious registered causes of death. However, they remain our best hope of knowing how many people have passed away.
In the meantime, while we wait for the ONS data to emerge, the MSM are reporting every COVID19 death from any source they can find. Some are vaguely confirmed and some not. They are also reporting suspected COVID19 deaths from care homes, provisional figures from the NHS , the CQC and then the same figures again from the DHSC and later the ONS.
The narrative they are presenting, on the back of this hodgepodge of statistical irrelevance, is designed to convince the public of the severity of the outbreak in the UK. There is clearly high excess mortality at the moment. Thanks to the lockdown, this is happening while the NHS is essentially closed to everyone other than suspected COVID19 patients.
Early studies have already predicted a significant health impact from the lack of essential health care caused by the lockdown. People requiring treatment for a range of other potentially fatal conditions aren’t getting it. This was acknowledged by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty in the daily briefing on April 30th:
“…You have the direct deaths from coronavirus but also indirect deaths. Part of which is caused by the NHS and public health services not being able to do what they normally can to look after people with other conditions….It is therefore important…..to do the other important things like urgent cancer care, elective surgery and all the other thing like screening….which we need to do to keep people healthy.”
How many people have died of other causes, due to the lockdown, only to be registered as COVID19 deaths? We just don’t know and the ONS have no way of finding out.
However we do know, thanks to the ONS, the total all cause mortality as a percentage of population in England and Wales over recent decades. This analysis shows us, while excess mortality this year is high, it is by no means unprecedented. In fact, as a percentage of population, it is notably lower to the comparable years of 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999. Yet none of these years necessitated the shut down of the economy nor the dire health consequences of closing the NHS to all but a few patients.
Between 27th March and 17th April (ONS weeks 14,15 & 16) the ONS registered 25,932 additional deaths above the statistical recent 5 year norm. Of these 11,427 recorded COVID19 as the sole mentioned underlying cause.
We have just explored the considerable doubt about this attribution. However, if we accept this figure, it means the remaining 14,505 people died with other registered underlying causes. That means approximately 56% of additional excess mortality is attributable to something else, either in addition to or entirely separate from suggested COVID19.
Given this inexplicable Spring mortality, it seems highly likely these are at least some of the indirect deaths the UK’s Chief Medical Officer spoke of. To claim all these excess deaths are the result of COVID19, as the State and MSM persistently do, is without any justification whatsoever.
It is not possible to identify how many people have died as a direct result of COVID19 either from the registration of deaths or the resultant statistics. This is not the fault of medical practitioners or statisticians. It is caused by a State response to a claimed pandemic which has rendered the most crucial processes, and the data gleaned from them, a statistical nonsense.


offguardian--2020-05-06--Authoritarianism in the Age of Pseudoscience

Following the court decision in the US to award in favour of Dewayne Johnson ( exposure to Monsanto ’ s Roundup weed killer and its active ingredient , glyphosate , caused Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma ) , attorney Robert Kennedy Jr said at the post-trial press conference : Johnson ’ s lawyers argued over the course of the month-long trial in 2018 that Monsanto had “ fought science ” for years and targeted academics who spoke up about possible health risks of the herbicide product .
Long before the Johnson case , critics of Monsanto were already aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for decades to undermine science .
At the same time , Monsanto and its lobbyists had called anyone who questioned the company ’ s ‘ science ’ as engaging in pseudoscience and labelled them ‘ anti-science ’ .
We need look no further than the current coronavirus issue to understand how vested interests are set to profit by spinning the crisis a certain way and how questionable science is again being used to pursue policies that are essentially ‘ unscientific ’ – governments , the police and the corporate media have become the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also see anyone challenging the policies and the ‘ science ’ being censored on social media or not being given a platform on TV and accused of engaging in ‘ misinformation ’ .
It ’ s the same old playbook .
The case-fatality ratio for COVID-19 is so low as to make the lockdown response wholly disproportionate .
Yet we are asked to blindly accept government narratives and the policies based on them .
Making an entire country go home and stay home has immense , incalculable costs in terms of well-being and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pervasive sense of panic and crisis and is largely a result of the measures taken against the ‘ pandemic ’ and not of the virus itself .
Certain epidemiologists have said there is very little sturdy evidence to base lockdown policies on , but this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science .
The lockdown would not be merited if we were to genuinely adopt a knowledge-based approach .
If we look at early projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of possible deaths resulting from the coronavirus and has now backtracked substantially .
Ferguson has a chequered track record , which led UK newspaper The Telegraph to run a piece entitled ‘ How accurate was the science that led to lockdown ?
’ The article outlines Ferguson ’ s previous flawed predictions about infectious diseases and a number of experts raise serious questions about the modelling that led to lockdown in the UK .
Ferguson ’ s previous modelling for the spread of epidemics was so off the mark that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith in anything he says , yet he remains part of the UK government ’ s scientific advisory group .
Officials are now talking of ‘ easing ’ lockdowns , but Ferguson warns that lockdown in the UK will only be lifted once a vaccine for COVID-19 has been found .
It raises the question : when will Ferguson be held to account for his current and previously flawed work and his exaggerated predictions ?
Because , on the basis of his modelling , the UK has been in lockdown for many weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a toll on the livelihoods and well-being of the population which are and will continue to far outweigh the effects of COVID-19 .
According to a 1982 academic study , a 1 % increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [ including 20,000 heart attacks , 920 suicides , 650 homicides ] , 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions .
Consider that by 30 April , in the US alone , 30 million had filed for unemployment benefit since the lockdown began .
Between 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed for unemployment benefit .
Prior to the current crisis , the unemployment rate was 3.5 % .
Some predict it could eventually reach 30 % .
Ferguson – whose model was the basis for policies elsewhere in addition to the UK – is as much to blame as anyone for the current situation .
And it is a situation that has been fuelled by a government and media promoted fear narrative that has had members of the public so afraid of the virus that many have been demanding further restrictions of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ save ’ them .
Even with the promise of easing the lockdown , people seem to be fearful of venturing out in the near future thanks to the fear campaign they have been subjected to .
Instead of encouraging more diverse , informed and objective opinions in the mainstream , we too often see money and power forcing the issue , not least in the form of Bill Gates who tells the world ‘ normality ’ may not return for another 18 months – until he and his close associates in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all vaccinated .
In the UK , the population is constantly subjected via their TV screens to clap for NHS workers , support the NHS and to stay home and save lives on the basis of questionable data and policies .
Emotive stuff taking place under a ruling Conservative Party that has cut thousands of hospital beds , frozen staff pay , placed workers on zero-hour contracts and demonised junior doctors .
It is also using the current crisis to accelerate the privatisation of state health care .
In recent weeks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal tendering and award a string of contracts to private companies and management consultants without open competition .
But if cheap propaganda stunts do not secure the compliance , open threats will suffice .
For instance , in the US , city mayors and local politicians have threatened to ‘ hunt down ’ , monitor social media and jail those who break lockdown rules .
Prominent conservative commentator Tucker Carlson asks who gave these people the authority to tear up the US constitution ; what gives them the right to threaten voters while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed as having little regard for lockdown norms .
As overhead drones bark out orders to residents , Carlson wonders how the US – almost overnight – transformed into a totalitarian state .
With a compliant media failing to hold tyrannical officials to account , Carlson ’ s concerns mirror those of Lionel Shriver in the UK , writing in The Spectator , who declares that the supine capitulation of Britain to a de facto police state has been one of the most depressing spectacles he has ever witnessed .
Under the pretext @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , the UK government is rolling out an app which will let the likes of Apple and Google monitor a person ’ s every location visited and every physical contact .
There seems to be little oversight in terms of privacy .
The contact-tracing app has opted for a centralised model of data collection : all the contact-tracing data is not to be deleted but anonymized and kept under one roof in one central government database for ‘ research purposes ’ .
We may think back to Cambridge Analytica ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential for data misuse .
But privacy is the least concern for governments and the global tech giants in an age where ‘ data ’ has become monetized as a saleable commodity , with the UK data market the second biggest in the world and valued at over a billion pounds in 2018 .
Paranoia is usually the ever-present bedfellow of fear and many people have been very keen to inform the authorities that their neighbours may have been breaking social distancing rules .
Moreover , although any such opinion poll can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be regarded as part of the mainstream fear narrative itself , a recent survey suggests that only 20 % of Britons are in favour of reopening restaurants , schools , pubs and stadiums .
Is this to be the new ‘ normal ’ , whereby fear , mistrust , division and suspicion are internalized throughout society ?
In an age of fear and paranoia , are we all to be ‘ contact traced ’ and regarded by others as a ‘ risk ’ until we prove ourselves by wearing face masks and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entrances to stores or in airports ?
And if we refuse or test positive , are we to be shamed , isolated and forced to comply by being ‘ medicated ’ ( vaccinated and chipped ) ?
Is this the type of world that ’ s soon to be regarded as ‘ normal ’ ?
A world in which liberty and fundamental rights mean nothing .
A world dominated by shaming and spurious notions of personal responsibility that are little more than ideological constructs of a hegemonic narrative which labels rational thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world in which the scourge of authoritarianism reigns supreme .
As this article was going to press , it was announced that Neil Ferguson is resigning from his role as science advisor to Boris Johnson ’ s government , in the wake of the allegations he has broken the lockdown rules he himself recommended in order to meet his girlfriend – ed .

Colin Todhunter
Following the court decision in the US to award in favour of Dewayne Johnson (exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer and its active ingredient, glyphosate, caused Johnson to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma), attorney Robert Kennedy Jr said at the post-trial press conference:
The corruption of science, the falsification of science, and we saw all those things happen here. This is a company (Monsanto) that used all of the plays in the playbook developed over 60 years by the tobacco industry to escape the consequences of killing one of every five of its customers… Monsanto… has used those strategies…”
Johnson’s lawyers argued over the course of the month-long trial in 2018 that Monsanto had “fought science” for years and targeted academics who spoke up about possible health risks of the herbicide product.
Long before the Johnson case, critics of Monsanto were already aware of the practices the company had engaged in for decades to undermine science. At the same time, Monsanto and its lobbyists had called anyone who questioned the company’s ‘science’ as engaging in pseudoscience and labelled them ‘anti-science’.
We need look no further than the current coronavirus issue to understand how vested interests are set to profit by spinning the crisis a certain way and how questionable science is again being used to pursue policies that are essentially ‘unscientific’ – governments, the police and the corporate media have become the arbiters of ‘truth’.
We also see anyone challenging the policies and the ‘science’ being censored on social media or not being given a platform on TV and accused of engaging in ‘misinformation’. It’s the same old playbook.
The case-fatality ratio for COVID-19 is so low as to make the lockdown response wholly disproportionate. Yet we are asked to blindly accept government narratives and the policies based on them.
Making an entire country go home and stay home has immense, incalculable costs in terms of well-being and livelihoods. This itself has created a pervasive sense of panic and crisis and is largely a result of the measures taken against the ‘pandemic’ and not of the virus itself.
Certain epidemiologists have said there is very little sturdy evidence to base lockdown policies on, but this has not prevented politicians from acting as if everything they say or do is based on solid science.
The lockdown would not be merited if we were to genuinely adopt a knowledge-based approach. If we look at early projections by Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in the UK, he had grossly overstated the number of possible deaths resulting from the coronavirus and has now backtracked substantially.
Ferguson has a chequered track record, which led UK newspaper The Telegraph to run a piece entitled ‘How accurate was the science that led to lockdown?’ The article outlines Ferguson’s previous flawed predictions about infectious diseases and a number of experts raise serious questions about the modelling that led to lockdown in the UK.
Ferguson’s previous modelling for the spread of epidemics was so off the mark that it may beggar believe that anyone could have faith in anything he says, yet he remains part of the UK government’s scientific advisory group. Officials are now talking of ‘easing’ lockdowns, but Ferguson warns that lockdown in the UK will only be lifted once a vaccine for COVID-19 has been found.
It raises the question: when will Ferguson be held to account for his current and previously flawed work and his exaggerated predictions? Because, on the basis of his modelling, the UK has been in lockdown for many weeks, the results of which are taking a toll on the livelihoods and well-being of the population which are and will continue to far outweigh the effects of COVID-19.
According to a 1982 academic study, a 1% increase in the unemployment rate will be associated with 37,000 deaths [including 20,000 heart attacks, 920 suicides, 650 homicides], 4,000 state mental hospital admissions and 3,300 state prison admissions.
Consider that by 30 April, in the US alone, 30 million had filed for unemployment benefit since the lockdown began. Between 23 and 30 April, some 3.8 million filed for unemployment benefit. Prior to the current crisis, the unemployment rate was 3.5%. Some predict it could eventually reach 30%.
Ferguson – whose model was the basis for policies elsewhere in addition to the UK – is as much to blame as anyone for the current situation. And it is a situation that has been fuelled by a government and media promoted fear narrative that has had members of the public so afraid of the virus that many have been demanding further restrictions of their liberty by the state in order to ‘save’ them.
Even with the promise of easing the lockdown, people seem to be fearful of venturing out in the near future thanks to the fear campaign they have been subjected to.
Instead of encouraging more diverse, informed and objective opinions in the mainstream, we too often see money and power forcing the issue, not least in the form of Bill Gates who tells the world ‘normality’ may not return for another 18 months – until he and his close associates in the pharmaceuticals industry find a vaccine and we are all vaccinated.
In the UK, the population is constantly subjected via their TV screens to clap for NHS workers, support the NHS and to stay home and save lives on the basis of questionable data and policies. Emotive stuff taking place under a ruling Conservative Party that has cut thousands of hospital beds, frozen staff pay, placed workers on zero-hour contracts and demonised junior doctors.
It is also using the current crisis to accelerate the privatisation of state health care.
In recent weeks, ministers have used special powers to bypass normal tendering and award a string of contracts to private companies and management consultants without open competition.
But if cheap propaganda stunts do not secure the compliance, open threats will suffice. For instance, in the US, city mayors and local politicians have threatened to ‘hunt down’, monitor social media and jail those who break lockdown rules.
Prominent conservative commentator Tucker Carlson asks who gave these people the authority to tear up the US constitution; what gives them the right to threaten voters while they themselves or their families have been exposed as having little regard for lockdown norms. As overhead drones bark out orders to residents, Carlson wonders how the US – almost overnight – transformed into a totalitarian state.
With a compliant media failing to hold tyrannical officials to account, Carlson’s concerns mirror those of Lionel Shriver in the UK, writing in The Spectator, who declares that the supine capitulation of Britain to a de facto police state has been one of the most depressing spectacles he has ever witnessed.
Under the pretext of tracking and tracing the spread of the virus, the UK government is rolling out an app which will let the likes of Apple and Google monitor a person’s every location visited and every physical contact. There seems to be little oversight in terms of privacy.
The contact-tracing app has opted for a centralised model of data collection: all the contact-tracing data is not to be deleted but anonymized and kept under one roof in one central government database for ‘research purposes’.
We may think back to Cambridge Analytica’s harvesting of Facebook data to appreciate the potential for data misuse. But privacy is the least concern for governments and the global tech giants in an age where ‘data’ has become monetized as a saleable commodity, with the UK data market the second biggest in the world and valued at over a billion pounds in 2018.
Paranoia is usually the ever-present bedfellow of fear and many people have been very keen to inform the authorities that their neighbours may have been breaking social distancing rules.
Moreover, although any such opinion poll cannot be taken at face value and could be regarded as part of the mainstream fear narrative itself, a recent survey suggests that only 20% of Britons are in favour of reopening restaurants, schools, pubs and stadiums.
Is this to be the new ‘normal’, whereby fear, mistrust, division and suspicion are internalized throughout society? In an age of fear and paranoia, are we all to be ‘contact traced’ and regarded by others as a ‘risk’ until we prove ourselves by wearing face masks and by voluntarily subjecting ourselves to virus tests at the entrances to stores or in airports?
And if we refuse or test positive, are we to be shamed, isolated and forced to comply by being ‘medicated’ (vaccinated and chipped)?
Is this the type of world that’s soon to be regarded as ‘normal’?
A world in which liberty and fundamental rights mean nothing. A world dominated by shaming and spurious notions of personal responsibility that are little more than ideological constructs of a hegemonic narrative which labels rational thinking people as ‘anti-science’ – a world in which the scourge of authoritarianism reigns supreme.
As this article was going to press, it was announced that Neil Ferguson is resigning from his role as science advisor to Boris Johnson’s government, in the wake of the allegations he has broken the lockdown rules he himself recommended in order to meet his girlfriend – ed.


offguardian--2020-05-06--COVID19: Are ventilators killing people?

Intubation and ventilation were billed as the only way to treat Covid19 patients in the early days of the outbreak , but now some medical professionals are questioning the practice .
Since the coronavirus first jumped so dramatically from China to Italy , most of the talk in the Western world has been about whether or not our healthcare services will be able to cope with the predicted tidal wave of patients .
A tsunami of human suffering was predicted which , weeks later , is yet to materialise .
The NHS built a new 4000-bed emergency hospital , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now being shut down .
In the US field hospitals were erected , left standing empty for a few days , and then taken down .
Most specifically , in the early days , almost all the talk was about ventilators .
Did we have enough ?
Could we get more ?
Should we 3D print our own ?
Do we need car companies and arms dealers re-tool their factories to make more ?
This media narrative never fit with the real science of the situation .
Many doctors have since come forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only inappropriate for those with respiratory infections , but that it is being seriously over-used for Covid patients , and that it may be doing more harm than good .
Writing in The Spectator , Dr Matt Strauss underlined that ventilators were not a “ treatment ” per se , and were not intended for patients with respiratory diseases : And goes on to explain that patients may see absolutely no benefit from being on a ventilator : Many other articles have covered similar ground , including “ With ventilators running out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 ” in Stat News and “ Puzzling death rate among respiratory patients ” in Die Welt .
While New York-based critical care specialist Dr. Paul Mayo is quoted as saying : German Pulmonologust Dr Thomas Voshaar , chairman of Association of Pneumological Clinics , was equally candid about the risks of “ too much ” and “ too early ” ventilation .
Telling FAZ.net [ our emphasis ] : Invasive ventilation is fundamentally bad for patients .
Even if the ventilator is optimally adjusted and the care is perfect , the treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lungs are sensitive to two things : excess pressure and excessive oxygen concentration in the air supplied .
You also have to sedate the patient during ventilation – you take him out of the world .
He can no longer eat , drink and breathe on his own .
So I take total control over the organism .
I can only get air into my lungs with excess pressure .
The opposite happens during spontaneous breathing , the air gets into the lungs through negative pressure .
The terminal failure of the lungs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and too much oxygen .
[ Only ] 20-50 % of the ventilated Covid-19 patients have so far survived .
If this is the case , we have to ask : Is this due to the severity and course of the disease itself or maybe the preferred method of treatment ?
When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy , we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there .
This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia .
The truth is , rather than treating respiratory infections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppression of the cough reflex , needed to insert the ventilator tube into the trachea , means sedated patients can not clear their airway .
This leads to fluid build-up which , along with the bacteria forming around the foreign body , eventually causes serious bacterial infection .
This condition is called “ Ventilator-associated pneumonia ” ( VAP ) .
Studies show between 8 % and 28 % of all ventilated patients will be affected by it , and for 20-55 % of them it proves fatal .
Apart from the risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that the actual mechanics of the ventilator – forcing air in and out of lungs – eventually physically damages them beyond repair .
This is called “ ventilator-induced lung injury ” , and even if it doesn ’ t kill patients , it can lead to long-term damage and substantially reduced quality of life .
One study found that , even after recovering , 58 % of ventilated patients died within the next year .
Simply put : if you take people with severe heart problems , cancer , AIDs , diabetes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you put them on a mechanical ventilator the moment they exhibit the symptoms of a flu-like illness , you will kill a substantial portion of them .
Perhaps it is not surprising , then , that according to this article 66 % of UK Covid19 patients put on ventilators are dying .
A recent study found that , in New York , 88 % of ventilated Covid patients died .
In Italy it was over 81 % , in Wuhan it was 86 % .
Conversely , South Korea has reported good early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of oxygen therapy , or “ non-invasive ventilation ” .
The question arises : If ventilators are not recommended for respiratory infections , may do more damage than they prevent and are less effective than non-invasive ventilation , why are they being so widely used ?
Well , one possible reason is that , according to the WHO guidelines , non-invasive ventilation could contribute to the spread of the virus via “ aerosolisation ” .
This is repeated in guidelines from the CDC , ECDC and other national institutions .
The UK ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with their March 19th protocol actually calling mechanical ventilation the “ preferred ” option over non-invasive ventilation or other oxygen therapies .
This leaves wide open the possibility that hospitals are using treatments known to cause harm , simply to avoid the hypothetical spread of the virus .
So , where do we stand ?
We have already established that the planet-wide guidance on death certificates is leading to “ substantial overestimates ” in the number of Covid19 deaths .
We also know that the PCR tests are not meant to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real risk of large numbers of false-positive results .
Both of these facts will artificially and dramatically increase the death toll and case-load respectively .
However , this situation seems to go one step further .
It seems over-use of ventilators may actually be killing people who could otherwise have survived .

Intubation and ventilation were billed as the only way to treat Covid19 patients in the early days of the outbreak, but now some medical professionals are questioning the practice.
Kit Knightly
Since the coronavirus first jumped so dramatically from China to Italy, most of the talk in the Western world has been about whether or not our healthcare services will be able to cope with the predicted tidal wave of patients.
A tsunami of human suffering was predicted which, weeks later, is yet to materialise. The NHS built a new 4000-bed emergency hospital, the Nightingale Centre…which was barely used and is now being shut down. In the US field hospitals were erected, left standing empty for a few days, and then taken down.
Most specifically, in the early days, almost all the talk was about ventilators. Did we have enough? Could we get more? Should we 3D print our own? Do we need car companies and arms dealers re-tool their factories to make more?
This media narrative never fit with the real science of the situation.
Many doctors have since come forward to say that mechanical ventilation is not only inappropriate for those with respiratory infections, but that it is being seriously over-used for Covid patients, and that it may be doing more harm than good.
Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss underlined that ventilators were not a “treatment” per se, and were not intended for patients with respiratory diseases:
Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application.
And goes on to explain that patients may see absolutely no benefit from being on a ventilator:
There has never been a placebo randomised control trial of putting people on ventilators versus letting them struggle on. We therefore do not, strictly-speaking, know whether those who survive their time on ventilator may have survived anyway, or whether some would-be survivors died because they were committed to a ventilator.
Many other articles have covered similar ground, including “With ventilators running out, doctors say the machines are overused for Covid-19” in Stat News and “Puzzling death rate among respiratory patients” in Die Welt.
Dr Eddy Fan told the Associated Press:
One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful how we use it.”
Dr Joseph Habboushe added:
If we’re able to make them better without intubating them, they are more likely to have a better outcome”
While New York-based critical care specialist Dr. Paul Mayo is quoted as saying:
Putting a person on a ventilator creates a disease known as being on a ventilator.’
German Pulmonologust Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of Association of Pneumological Clinics, was equally candid about the risks of “too much” and “too early” ventilation. Telling FAZ.net [our emphasis]:
Invasive ventilation is fundamentally bad for patients. Even if the ventilator is optimally adjusted and the care is perfect, the treatment brings with it many complications. The lungs are sensitive to two things: excess pressure and excessive oxygen concentration in the air supplied. You also have to sedate the patient during ventilation – you take him out of the world. He can no longer eat, drink and breathe on his own. So I take total control over the organism. I can only get air into my lungs with excess pressure. The opposite happens during spontaneous breathing, the air gets into the lungs through negative pressure. The terminal failure of the lungs is often caused by too high pressure and too much oxygen. […] [Only] 20-50% of the ventilated Covid-19 patients have so far survived. If this is the case, we have to ask: Is this due to the severity and course of the disease itself or maybe the preferred method of treatment? When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia.
The truth is, rather than treating respiratory infections, ventilators actually cause them.
The suppression of the cough reflex, needed to insert the ventilator tube into the trachea, means sedated patients cannot clear their airway. This leads to fluid build-up which, along with the bacteria forming around the foreign body, eventually causes serious bacterial infection.
This condition is called “Ventilator-associated pneumonia” (VAP). Studies show between 8% and 28% of all ventilated patients will be affected by it, and for 20-55% of them it proves fatal.
Apart from the risk of infection, it’s also the case that the actual mechanics of the ventilator – forcing air in and out of lungs – eventually physically damages them beyond repair.
This is called “ventilator-induced lung injury”, and even if it doesn’t kill patients, it can lead to long-term damage and substantially reduced quality of life.
One study found that, even after recovering, 58% of ventilated patients died within the next year.
Simply put: if you take people with severe heart problems, cancer, AIDs, diabetes or other dangerous health issues, and you put them on a mechanical ventilator the moment they exhibit the symptoms of a flu-like illness, you will kill a substantial portion of them.
Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that according to this article 66% of UK Covid19 patients put on ventilators are dying. A recent study found that, in New York, 88% of ventilated Covid patients died. In Italy it was over 81%, in Wuhan it was 86%.
Conversely, South Korea has reported good early results treating Covid19 patients with other forms of oxygen therapy, or “non-invasive ventilation”.
The question arises: If ventilators are not recommended for respiratory infections, may do more damage than they prevent and are less effective than non-invasive ventilation, why are they being so widely used?
Well, one possible reason is that, according to the WHO guidelines, non-invasive ventilation could contribute to the spread of the virus via “aerosolisation”. This is repeated in guidelines from the CDC, ECDC and other national institutions.
The UK’s NHS goes one step further again, with their March 19th protocol actually calling mechanical ventilation the “preferred” option over non-invasive ventilation or other oxygen therapies.
This leaves wide open the possibility that hospitals are using treatments known to cause harm, simply to avoid the hypothetical spread of the virus.
Summary
So, where do we stand?
We have already established that the planet-wide guidance on death certificates is leading to “substantial overestimates” in the number of Covid19 deaths.
We also know that the PCR tests are not meant to be used diagnostically, and present a very real risk of large numbers of false-positive results.
Both of these facts will artificially and dramatically increase the death toll and case-load respectively.
However, this situation seems to go one step further. It seems over-use of ventilators may actually be killing people who could otherwise have survived.


offguardian--2020-05-07--WATCH: Corona ‘Crisis’, what really happened and how to learn from it?

The now world-famous Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg – who has decades of experience with viruses , epidemics and their consequences – presents his vision on the Corona ‘ Crisis ’ .
A malignant crisis that is entirely driven by misinformation and panic .
On the one hand , a ‘ Corona test ’ that detects old coronaviruses that have been circulating among people for a long time .
Performed in ever-increasing numbers these by definition result in ever-increasing numbers of positive tests – alarmingly labeled ‘ cases ’ .
A flu wave that in the medical world and the media only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all other respiratory viruses that also participate suddenly disappear from the picture .
A worldwide total number of flu victims that is completely in line with other years .
And on the other hand , a ‘ disease ’ COVID-19 that has no specific symptoms but is mainly caused by panic .
Panic that has caused problems for hospitals and healthcare providers in various parts of the world , not because of ‘ the disease itself ’ , but because of other diverse circumstances , including population structure , health , quality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( ICU/breathing ) treatment .
Wodarg is reassuring for anyone concerned about ‘ the virus ’ .
That danger is no greater than in any other flu season ( now also based on tens of internationally leading scientists analyzing actual figures from all over the world ) .
Wodarg ’ s message is disturbing when you wonder how the whole world can be fooled by such a clearly fact-free ‘ panic ’ allowing itself to be led to the curtailment of the most fundamental freedoms .
A world that thinks it has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ .
In which incredibly dangerous and extremely undesirable ’ solutions ’ such as ‘ mass vaccination ’ , ‘ contact tracing ’ , and other ‘ surveillance ’ are seen as attractive .
Wodarg warns for a new wave of cleverly induced panic and thousands of unnecessary deaths as the ‘ COVID-19 ’ ( Hydroxy ) Chloroquine treatments that are now being prepared in hundreds of trials by the WHO will soon be carried out in Africa .
10-20 % of the male population of former Malaria areas have ‘ favism ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For this large group of people , treatment with ( Hydroxy ) Chloroquine is often fatal .
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg urges everyone to address their own , local , people ’ s representatives .
And to appeal to their sense of responsibility .
To inform themselves .
And to ensure that the worldwide madness about this lied crisis and the incredibly dangerous ‘ solutions ’ are turned around immediately .
Interviewee : Dr Wolfgang Wodarg , born in 1947 , is an Internist and Pulmonologist , specialist in Hygiene and Environmental Medicine as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After his clinical activity as an Internist , he was , among other things , Public Health Officer in Schleswig-Holstein for 13 years , a university lecturer and Chairman of the Expert Committee for Health-related Environmental Protection at the Schleswig-Holstein Medical Association ; in 1991 he received a DAAD Scholarship to Johns Hopkins University , Baltimore , USA ( epidemiology ) .
As a member of the German Bundestag from 1994 to 2009 , he was initiator and speaker in the Enquête Commission “ Ethics and Law of Modern Medicine ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Council of Europe , where he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and deputy chairman of the Committee on Culture , Education and Science .
In 2009 , he initiated the Committee of Inquiry into WHO ’ s role in H1N1 ( ‘ Swine flu ’ ) in Strasbourg , where he remained as a scientific expert after leaving Parliament .
Since 2011 he has been working as a freelance university lecturer , doctor and health scientist and was a volunteer member of the board and head of the Health Working Group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Interviewer : Stefan Noordhoek is a son , brother and father of 2 sons .
Owner of ZZESTO , an Amsterdam agency for branding and marketing in real estate .
In his spare time he immerses himself in the facts behind subjects at the intersection of politics , science and media .

The now world-famous Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg – who has decades of experience with viruses, epidemics and their consequences – presents his vision on the Corona ‘Crisis’. A malignant crisis that is entirely driven by misinformation and panic.
On the one hand, a ‘Corona test’ that detects old coronaviruses that have been circulating among people for a long time. Performed in ever-increasing numbers these by definition result in ever-increasing numbers of positive tests – alarmingly labeled ‘cases’.
A flu wave that in the medical world and the media only consists of ‘Corona’ and where all other respiratory viruses that also participate suddenly disappear from the picture.
A worldwide total number of flu victims that is completely in line with other years. And on the other hand, a ‘disease’ COVID-19 that has no specific symptoms but is mainly caused by panic. Panic that has caused problems for hospitals and healthcare providers in various parts of the world, not because of ‘the disease itself’, but because of other diverse circumstances, including population structure, health, quality and capacity vs. care and the often fatal (ICU/breathing) treatment.
Wodarg is reassuring for anyone concerned about ‘the virus’. That danger is no greater than in any other flu season (now also based on tens of internationally leading scientists analyzing actual figures from all over the world).
Wodarg’s message is disturbing when you wonder how the whole world can be fooled by such a clearly fact-free ‘panic’ allowing itself to be led to the curtailment of the most fundamental freedoms. A world that thinks it has to prepare itself for a ‘new normal’. In which incredibly dangerous and extremely undesirable ’solutions’ such as ‘mass vaccination’, ‘contact tracing’, and other ‘surveillance’ are seen as attractive.
Wodarg warns for a new wave of cleverly induced panic and thousands of unnecessary deaths as the ‘COVID-19’ (Hydroxy) Chloroquine treatments that are now being prepared in hundreds of trials by the WHO will soon be carried out in Africa. 10-20% of the male population of former Malaria areas have ‘favism’, Glucose-6-phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). For this large group of people, treatment with (Hydroxy) Chloroquine is often fatal.
Dr Wolfgang Wodarg urges everyone to address their own, local, people’s representatives. And to appeal to their sense of responsibility. To inform themselves. And to ensure that the worldwide madness about this lied crisis and the incredibly dangerous ‘solutions’ are turned around immediately.
Interviewee: Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, born in 1947, is an Internist and Pulmonologist, specialist in Hygiene and Environmental Medicine as well as Public Health and Social Medicine. After his clinical activity as an Internist, he was, among other things, Public Health Officer in Schleswig-Holstein for 13 years, a university lecturer and Chairman of the Expert Committee for Health-related Environmental Protection at the Schleswig-Holstein Medical Association; in 1991 he received a DAAD Scholarship to Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA (epidemiology).
As a member of the German Bundestag from 1994 to 2009, he was initiator and speaker in the Enquête Commission “Ethics and Law of Modern Medicine”, member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, where he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and deputy chairman of the Committee on Culture, Education and Science.
In 2009, he initiated the Committee of Inquiry into WHO’s role in H1N1 (‘Swine flu’) in Strasbourg, where he remained as a scientific expert after leaving Parliament. Since 2011 he has been working as a freelance university lecturer, doctor and health scientist and was a volunteer member of the board and head of the Health Working Group at Transparency International Germany until 2020.
Interviewer: Stefan Noordhoek is a son, brother and father of 2 sons. Owner of ZZESTO, an Amsterdam agency for branding and marketing in real estate. In his spare time he immerses himself in the facts behind subjects at the intersection of politics, science and media.