offguardian--2020-04-28--The Gates Foundation and the War on Cash

Back in November 2016 , the Indian government decided to remove all 500- and 1000-rupee notes from circulation overnight without prior notice .
This effectively removed 86 % of cash in a country that was almost 90 % cash reliant .
The notes became worthless and people were asked to hand them into banks .
They would only receive what they had deposited in dribs and drabs over time in the form of new notes .
The official reason for this was that the action would curtail the shadow economy and reduce the use of illicit and counterfeit cash to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who questioned the official narrative regarded this ‘ demonetisation ’ policy as a ploy to take money from the public and use it to inject much-needed liquidity into the banking system that had been bled dry by the outflow of cheap money ( and loan waivers ) to large corporations which had been milking the well dry .
The purpose of this article is not to explore the merits or otherwise of this claim or the official government narrative .
The point here is to highlight how the policy ( also ) formed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on cash ’ .
In the discussion that follows , it will be shown that Bill Gates is a major player in trying to get the world to go digital and ditch cash , especially relevant given his role in the COVID-19 issue .
When we look beyond the mainstream narrative to gain an understanding of the current crisis , it doesn ’ t take long before the name of Bill Gates and his foundation appears .
And this is no coincidence seeing that he has placed himself firmly in the limelight on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on COVID-19 and what he thinks should be done .
He has mentioned the need for maintaining some form of lockdown until a vaccine is discovered .
Much has been written on the Gates Foundation ’ s close associations with the big vaccine manufacturers and its questionable practices and record in rolling out vaccines in places like Africa and India .
US attorney Robert F Kennedy Jr says that top Trump advisor Anthony Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines , partially funded by Gates , without critical animal studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ danger of adverse events that he says vaccines shouldn ’ t be distributed until governments agree to indemnity against lawsuits .
But this should come as little surprise .
The Gates Foundation and its global vaccine agenda already has much to answer for .
Instead of prioritising projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases and improve health – clean water , hygiene , nutrition and economic development – Kennedy notes that the Gates Foundation spends only about $ 650 million of its $ 5 billion budget on these areas .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an agenda : it believes that many of its aims can be delivered via the barrel of a syringe .
It has been well documented in recent weeks about how the Gates Foundation has spread its tentacles into every facet of global health policy .
For instance , it is a major funder of the World Health Organization and donates to other pivotal players in the COVID-19 saga , not least Imperial College London whose Neil Ferguson produced hugely flawed data upon which the UK government implemented a lockdown , which entailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s basic rights via the Coronavirus Emergency Act .
Although often alluded to , Gates ’ s push for cashless societies is given less attention in the current climate but is just as important .
It is not only the major pharmaceutical corporations which the Gates Foundation is firmly in bed with ( along with the big agri-food players ) , it is also embedded with Wall Street financial interests .
The global shift from cash towards digital transactions is being spearheaded by Bill Gates and US financial corporations who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time , by controlling digital payments ( and removing cash ) , you can control and monitor everything a country and its citizens do and pay for .
In India , the informal workforce has been measured at around 85 % .
By 2014 , fewer than 35 % of Indians above the age of 15 had used a bank account and under 10 % had ever used any kind of non-cash payment instrument .
Although some voices welcomed the 2016 demonetisation policy , as they believed it would push many Indians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ , it was , according to economist Norbert Haring , concocted in Washington , not for the benefit of Indians but in the interests of Western financial institutions who are pushing for a cashless world .
For a lower-income country such as India , which runs on cash , the outcomes were catastrophic for hundreds of millions of people , especially those who did not have a bank account ( almost half the population ) or did not have easy access to a bank .
According to Haring , the global ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some heavy hitters : the major US banks and likes of PayPal , Visa and the Gates Foundation .
Writing in 2017 , he argued that the cooperation of the Gates Foundation and the Reserve Bank of India ( RBI ) has been a very tight one .
For example , Nachiket Mor , a banker , is director of the Gates Foundation India .
He is also a board member of the RBI with responsibility for financial supervision .
Haring indicates that the demonetization policy was carried out on behalf of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people behind eBay and Citi , among others , with support from the Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation .
He adds that the start of direct cooperation of the Gates Foundation with the RBI on digital payments coincided with the work of the foundation in the President ’ s Global Development Council , which was to promote cooperation with foreign governments and the private sector with a view to securing US defence and commercial interests .
Bill Gates , Haring notes , gave an example of the link between worldwide digitalisation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies ) and US security interests in a speech in 2015 .
Demonetisation used the Indian population as a collective guinea pig to see how far the geostrategic interests of the US and those of Wall Street could be secured in a country of 1.3 billion people .
The effects of people ’ s lives did not matter as long as the policy was pushed forward .
And this was carried out with reference to the usual corporate jargon of ‘ financial inclusion ’ .
Cash already provides financial inclusion .
What does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time of inclusion is a neoliberal system that imposes gross inequalities , austerity , joblessness , neocolonialism and the destruction of indigenous practices and cultures under the guise of ‘ development ’ , the deliberate impoverishment of farmers in India , the twisting and writing of national and international laws , the destruction of rural communities or an unjust global food regime .
It is clear that ‘ financial inclusion ’ really means eliminating the main competitor of digital payments and finance sector profits – cash .
In capitalism , every aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the quest for fresh markets and profit – in this case , securing payments from payments .
Norbert Haring quotes Dan Schulmann , CEO of PayPal , who has stated : He also quotes Strive Masiyiwa , chairman and founder of Econet , a large African mobile phone company with a payment platform : It seems ‘ financial inclusion ’ really means denying sections of society their preferred method of payment – cash – to benefit the bottom line of these corporations .
Did Gates and his associates succeed in pushing Indians off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volume of digital payments had doubled .
At the same time , however , at the end of May 2019 , currency notes in circulation had increased by more than 22 % over the pre-demonetisation level .
The use of cash was expected to reach $ 2.45 trillion by 2021 , up from $ 1.5 trillion in 2016 , although demonetisation helped digital payments advance by three to four years .
The 2016 policy adopted a callous and ill-thought-out blanket approach .
And it was not as though Indians were clamouring for digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under cover of COVID-19 lockdowns , can we expect to see cash being pushed right to the margins when countries emerge from the current crisis ( for instance , in an ongoing pandemic culture of fear and paranoia , it would be easy to convince people that notes and coins are potential transmitters of disease , or with mass unemployment we may have universal basic income schemes linked to digital payment systems ) ?
It can already be seen with large stores asking customers to pay by card whenever possible .
Many commentators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been used to remove basic rights and how vaccines and surveillance will be intensified .
What could follow may also see our purchases and behaviour being monitored even further via digital payments .
For instance , Haring notes that in Kenya Gates saw little wrong in compelling mobile phone providers to give the authorities the opportunity to monitor all phone calls and mobile payments by telling phone companies to let contracted ( private ) companies hook up to all routers .
The plan was to monitor transactions and use the data to target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transactions , thereby driving consumption .
It doesn ’ t take a great leap of faith to appreciate how in a fully digital system , ‘ financial flows ’ could be blocked , as Gates implied back in 2015 .
This already happens in the dollar-centred monetary system .
But when there is no cash to fall back on and every single transaction in a society is computerised and can be monitored by the state and private corporations , will the term ‘ financial inclusion ’ then sound so benign ?

Colin Todhunter
Back in November 2016, the Indian government decided to remove all 500- and 1000-rupee notes from circulation overnight without prior notice. This effectively removed 86% of cash in a country that was almost 90% cash reliant.
The notes became worthless and people were asked to hand them into banks. They would only receive what they had deposited in dribs and drabs over time in the form of new notes. The official reason for this was that the action would curtail the shadow economy and reduce the use of illicit and counterfeit cash to fund illegal activity and terrorism.
Some who questioned the official narrative regarded this ‘demonetisation’ policy as a ploy to take money from the public and use it to inject much-needed liquidity into the banking system that had been bled dry by the outflow of cheap money (and loan waivers) to large corporations which had been milking the well dry.
The purpose of this article is not to explore the merits or otherwise of this claim or the official government narrative. The point here is to highlight how the policy (also) formed part of an ongoing global ‘war on cash’.
In the discussion that follows, it will be shown that Bill Gates is a major player in trying to get the world to go digital and ditch cash, especially relevant given his role in the COVID-19 issue.
When we look beyond the mainstream narrative to gain an understanding of the current crisis, it doesn’t take long before the name of Bill Gates and his foundation appears. And this is no coincidence seeing that he has placed himself firmly in the limelight on prime time TV shows offering his opinion on COVID-19 and what he thinks should be done. He has mentioned the need for maintaining some form of lockdown until a vaccine is discovered.
Much has been written on the Gates Foundation’s close associations with the big vaccine manufacturers and its questionable practices and record in rolling out vaccines in places like Africa and India.
US attorney Robert F Kennedy Jr says that top Trump advisor Anthony Fauci has made the reckless choice to fast track vaccines, partially funded by Gates, without critical animal studies. Gates is so worried about the danger of adverse events that he says vaccines shouldn’t be distributed until governments agree to indemnity against lawsuits.
But this should come as little surprise. The Gates Foundation and its global vaccine agenda already has much to answer for. Instead of prioritising projects that are proven to curb infectious diseases and improve health – clean water, hygiene, nutrition and economic development – Kennedy notes that the Gates Foundation spends only about $650 million of its $5 billion budget on these areas.
It is fair to say that the Gates Foundation has an agenda: it believes that many of its aims can be delivered via the barrel of a syringe. It has been well documented in recent weeks about how the Gates Foundation has spread its tentacles into every facet of global health policy.
For instance, it is a major funder of the World Health Organization and donates to other pivotal players in the COVID-19 saga, not least Imperial College London whose Neil Ferguson produced hugely flawed data upon which the UK government implemented a lockdown, which entailed sanctioning draconian state powers and stripping of people’s basic rights via the Coronavirus Emergency Act.
Although often alluded to, Gates’s push for cashless societies is given less attention in the current climate but is just as important. It is not only the major pharmaceutical corporations which the Gates Foundation is firmly in bed with (along with the big agri-food players), it is also embedded with Wall Street financial interests.
The global shift from cash towards digital transactions is being spearheaded by Bill Gates and US financial corporations who will profit from digital payments. At the same time, by controlling digital payments (and removing cash), you can control and monitor everything a country and its citizens do and pay for.
War on cash in India
In India, the informal workforce has been measured at around 85%. By 2014, fewer than 35% of Indians above the age of 15 had used a bank account and under 10% had ever used any kind of non-cash payment instrument.
Although some voices welcomed the 2016 demonetisation policy, as they believed it would push many Indians off cash and towards ‘financial inclusion’, it was, according to economist Norbert Haring, concocted in Washington, not for the benefit of Indians but in the interests of Western financial institutions who are pushing for a cashless world.
For a lower-income country such as India, which runs on cash, the outcomes were catastrophic for hundreds of millions of people, especially those who did not have a bank account (almost half the population) or did not have easy access to a bank.
According to Haring, the global ‘war on cash’ has the backing of some heavy hitters: the major US banks and likes of PayPal, Visa and the Gates Foundation. Writing in 2017, he argued that the cooperation of the Gates Foundation and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has been a very tight one. For example, Nachiket Mor, a banker, is director of the Gates Foundation India. He is also a board member of the RBI with responsibility for financial supervision.
Haring indicates that the demonetization policy was carried out on behalf of USAID, MasterCard, Visa and the people behind eBay and Citi, among others, with support from the Gates Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
He adds that the start of direct cooperation of the Gates Foundation with the RBI on digital payments coincided with the work of the foundation in the President’s Global Development Council, which was to promote cooperation with foreign governments and the private sector with a view to securing US defence and commercial interests.
Bill Gates, Haring notes, gave an example of the link between worldwide digitalisation of payments (via the large US payment companies) and US security interests in a speech in 2015.
Gates said:
“If financial flows go into a digital system that the US is not connected to, it becomes much harder to find those transactions that you want to be aware of or you want to block.”
Demonetisation used the Indian population as a collective guinea pig to see how far the geostrategic interests of the US and those of Wall Street could be secured in a country of 1.3 billion people. The effects of people’s lives did not matter as long as the policy was pushed forward.
And this was carried out with reference to the usual corporate jargon of ‘financial inclusion’. Cash already provides financial inclusion.
What does not lead to financial inclusion or any time of inclusion is a neoliberal system that imposes gross inequalities, austerity, joblessness, neocolonialism and the destruction of indigenous practices and cultures under the guise of ‘development’, the deliberate impoverishment of farmers in India, the twisting and writing of national and international laws, the destruction of rural communities or an unjust global food regime.
It is clear that ‘financial inclusion’ really means eliminating the main competitor of digital payments and finance sector profits – cash. In capitalism, every aspect of human life is to be commodified in the quest for fresh markets and profit – in this case, securing payments from payments.
Norbert Haring quotes Dan Schulmann, CEO of PayPal, who has stated:
The major competitor we have is cash. Right now, 85 percent of the world’s transactions are done in cash. That is really what we are trying to attack right now.”
He also quotes Strive Masiyiwa, chairman and founder of Econet, a large African mobile phone company with a payment platform:
“Our major competitor is cash. Cash is what we seek to eliminate.”
It seems ‘financial inclusion’ really means denying sections of society their preferred method of payment – cash – to benefit the bottom line of these corporations.
Did Gates and his associates succeed in pushing Indians off cash?
By April 2018, the volume of digital payments had doubled. At the same time, however, at the end of May 2019, currency notes in circulation had increased by more than 22% over the pre-demonetisation level. The use of cash was expected to reach $2.45 trillion by 2021, up from $1.5 trillion in 2016, although demonetisation helped digital payments advance by three to four years.
The 2016 policy adopted a callous and ill-thought-out blanket approach. And it was not as though Indians were clamouring for digital – it was imposed on them.
Under cover of COVID-19 lockdowns, can we expect to see cash being pushed right to the margins when countries emerge from the current crisis (for instance, in an ongoing pandemic culture of fear and paranoia, it would be easy to convince people that notes and coins are potential transmitters of disease, or with mass unemployment we may have universal basic income schemes linked to digital payment systems)?
It can already be seen with large stores asking customers to pay by card whenever possible.
Many commentators have discussed how the current crisis has been used to remove basic rights and how vaccines and surveillance will be intensified. What could follow may also see our purchases and behaviour being monitored even further via digital payments.
For instance, Haring notes that in Kenya Gates saw little wrong in compelling mobile phone providers to give the authorities the opportunity to monitor all phone calls and mobile payments by telling phone companies to let contracted (private) companies hook up to all routers.
The plan was to monitor transactions and use the data to target people with advertising to make even more transactions, thereby driving consumption.
It doesn’t take a great leap of faith to appreciate how in a fully digital system, ‘financial flows’ could be blocked, as Gates implied back in 2015. This already happens in the dollar-centred monetary system.
But when there is no cash to fall back on and every single transaction in a society is computerised and can be monitored by the state and private corporations, will the term ‘financial inclusion’ then sound so benign?


offguardian--2020-04-29--WATCH: “Dr Erickson Covid19 Briefing” CENSORED by YouTube

This is the full version of the press conference , called by doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi , to release the results of their Covid19 testing program .
The video , initially broadcast on a local television station in California , went viral on youtube garnering over 4.3 million views…before YouTube took the video down , without explanation .
The two doctors , who own and run a clinic in Bakersfield , report that – according to their results – a higher than expected percentage of people are infected with the coronavirus , but that the vast majority show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with other studies done at Stanford University and by Japanese scientists in China .
If true , the danger of the virus may have been greatly exaggerated by the media , and shelter in place orders/lockdown policies could – through poverty , suicide and stress – potentially cause more damage than they prevent .
Apart from the video being taken down , the American College of Emergency Physicians ( ACEP ) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine ( AAEM ) released a joint statement which accused them of attention-seeking to further their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refute their arguments .
Whether they prove to be right or wrong , whether you agree or disagree with their theories or political opinions , is there anything in the video that justifies banning it or undermining free speech ?

This is the full version of the press conference, called by doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, to release the results of their Covid19 testing program.
The video, initially broadcast on a local television station in California, went viral on youtube garnering over 4.3 million views…before YouTube took the video down, without explanation.
The two doctors, who own and run a clinic in Bakersfield, report that – according to their results – a higher than expected percentage of people are infected with the coronavirus, but that the vast majority show no symptoms. This is in line with other studies done at Stanford University and by Japanese scientists in China.
If true, the danger of the virus may have been greatly exaggerated by the media, and shelter in place orders/lockdown policies could – through poverty, suicide and stress – potentially cause more damage than they prevent.
Apart from the video being taken down, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) released a joint statement which accused them of attention-seeking to further their careers, but didn’t actually refute their arguments.
Whether they prove to be right or wrong, whether you agree or disagree with their theories or political opinions, is there anything in the video that justifies banning it or undermining free speech?
In the interests of open information and informed debate, OffGuardian uploaded a version of this video to YouTube. It received 60 views and was removed for “inappropriate content”. The current embedded version is hosted on BitChute. Since, for some reason, BitChute embeds do not include a clickable link – you can visit the video on-site by clicking here.


offguardian--2020-04-29--LOKIN-20: The Lockdown Regime Causes Increasing Health Concerns

A new public health crisis , very recently identified as LOKIN-20 , is raising increasing health concerns in the UK .
In their response to a respiratory illness called COVID-19 ( C19 ) the UK State are among those who have responded by locking up their populations and destroying their own national economy .
This appears to be causing LOKIN-20 .
The most recent statistics from UK ’ s Office of National Statistics ( ONS ) raise significant concerns about health impact of the lockdown regimes favoured by some , but not all , governments .
All in response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University estimate to have an infection fatality rate ( IFR ) of between 0.1 % and 0.36 % .
Similar to seasonal flu .
Of course , a syndrome called LOKIN-20 hasn ’ t been identified as a cause of death .
However , in light of the current data , this post asks if it should .
LOKIN-20 and the Lack of Scientific Justification Both Public Health England ( PHE ) and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens ( ACDP ) were satisfied that COVID-19 ( C19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of mortality and downgraded it from the status of a High Consequence Infectious Disease ( HCID ) on March 19th .
The ACDP board members include Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College .
Presumably Prof. Ferguson was among the dissenting voices on the ACDP board as he completely ignored the majority opinion of his scientific colleagues .
In an interview on 13th February , widely reported by the mainstream media ( MSM ) , he stated his predictive models were “ not absurd.
” He said that infection rates of 60 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate were possible .
Standing by his prediction of 400,000 C19 deaths in the UK .
The Imperial College computer model report was released to the public on 16th March , predicting huge numbers of deaths from C19 .
By the 19th March Prof. Ferguson must have known a majority of his peers disagreed with him .
When it comes to wildly inaccurate predictions Prof. Ferguson ’ s work at Imperial College has a long and distinguished history .
In 2002 , he said that 50,000 people in the UK would die from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ date less than 200 have passed away ; he predicted 200 million global deaths from the H5N1 bird flu .
Currently it is a suspected factor in the deaths of 455 people world wide ; in 2009 he told the UK Government that 65,000 could die from swine flu in the UK and worked with the World Health Organisation to predict millions of deaths from the H1N1 global flu pandemic .
Suspected resultant UK deaths from swine flu were estimated to be 457 and the global total showed 18,500 laboratory-confirmed deaths from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disease Control ( CDC ) claim there were many more , though their estimate varies between 150,000 and 500,000 .
Quite an error margin and still considerably less than Imperial Colleges fantasy .
The CDC is heavily funded by flu vaccine manufacturers .
While Prof. Ferguson and his Imperial College colleagues have been consistently wrong they have also been unquestioningly believed by governments and intergovernmental bodies on every occasion .
Seemingly without reservation .
Despite the clear evidence to the contrary , policy makers from all political parties have shown tremendous loyalty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In doing so , they have not only ignored the researchers woeful history of failed predictions but have also denied the scientific evidence which usually contradicts them .
In no way can basing policy decisions on Imperial Colleges computer models be considered science led decision making .
Quite the opposite .
Farr ’ s Law is observed with all viral diseases and describes the rate at which a viral infections increases and then declines in a given population .
Initially , the virus has practically unlimited hosts and the rate of increasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become infected that rate declines .
The numbers still increase but the rate of that increase drops sharply .
Once the rate starts to decline virologists and epidemiologists can then predict the scale of the outbreak with some confidence .
It indicates that the disease has passed its peak potential and will wane naturally in the coming days and weeks .
Regardless of intervention .
Based upon UK statistics released by Worldometer we can see this initial rapidly increasing rate of infection and identify when that rate began to slow down .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the February 25th until April 15th , this changing rate of increase was evident .
That rate peaked on the March 4th and has declined since .
Following the drop in this rate on the 4th , with a consistent downward trend to March 16th , the scientists on the ACDP board could predict the trajectory of the disease with some certainty and consequently downgraded C19 due to low mortality rates .
Calculating the daily rate of increase can be done simply by dividing the current day ’ s total number of cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , on March 3rd there were 51 total cases rising by 36 , to reach a total of 87 , by March 4th .
A ratio rate increase of 0.71 .
This was the peak rate of increasing infections in the UK .
From this date onward the rate of increase declined markedly , in accordance with Farr ’ s Law .
We can plot these figures to find the changing rate of the increase in cases .
This slowing rate of new infections is also evident when we look at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This produces the familiar infection rate curve synonymous with Farr ’ s Law .
The UK government are among the many who apparently ignored the most basic concepts in virology and chose instead to base their lockdown regime upon the fictitious Imperial College models .
All the science indicated that existing measures , encouraging the public to observe basic hygiene and limit interactions with vulnerable people , was working , as C19 followed the normal bell curve of any viral disease in a population .
There was no scientific justification for the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response was “ led by the science.
” Nor is there any evidence that lockdown regimes have any positive impact upon infections rates .
Comparisons between severe lockdown states and those who opted for less draconian measures reveal no advantage to placing your population under house arrest .
States who chosen not to rip their economies apart appear to have fared much better .
Sweden did not deploy a lockdown and yet , according to data from John Hopkin ’ s University , case rates per million of populations are lower .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ In terms of limiting infection rates , there is no discernible benefit to lockdown regimes .
In fact , Oxford University found a direct correlation between infection rates and the relative severity of lockdown regimes .
It suggests the more stringent the lockdown , the higher the infection rate .
This is not unexpected , as numerous epidemiological studies have shown that infection rates for C19 are higher when people are exposed to it for prolonged periods in confined spaces .
Locking people up in their homes is probably the worst thing you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the infections and the duration of the outbreak .
This is well known to the World Health Organisation .
In their joint study with Chinese authorities , published in February , the WHO stated that airborne spread wasn ’ t reported for C19 and was not considered to be a method of transmission .
They found that most infections occurred within families where the chance of infection was as high as 20 % .
However , the chance of infection in the community was estimated to be between 1-5 % .
The WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virulent than influenza .
They say it is spread by droplets and can not linger in the air .
Equally there is little evidence that flu transmission is airborne .
The comparison between C19 and influenza is worth considering as we discuss LOKIN 20 .
About the only consistent element of the narrative we have been given about C19 is that we must believe the death toll is horrendous .
This “ alarmism ” has been spread by State officials and the mainstream media ( MSM ) .
It is unmitigated drivel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind whenever the MSM give you statistics about alleged deaths from C19 in the UK .
These factors are unique to C19 .
The ONS recording system was changed by the State , but only for C19 , from recording only registered deaths to adding in provisional deaths assumed to be from C19 .
The RT-PCR test for C19 does not appear to be very reliable .
Furthermore , the man who won the Nobel Prize for designing it specifically stated that it could not identify a virus .
As previously stated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infection and thus much lower mortality rate for C19 .
However , in the UK , a positive test is not even required for someone to be deemed to have died from C19 .
Nor does there need to be any clear evidence of causality for C19 to be declared as the underlying cause of death .
Merely “ mentioning ” C19 is considered sufficient .
Regardless of other , often multiple , comorbidities and infections .
In addition , from an age demographic perspective , C19 deaths appear to be indistinguishable from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Statistics ( ONS ) have reported a consistent rise in mortality between weeks 11 – 15 , covering the period 7th March to 10th April 2020 in England and Wales .
During that period deaths from all causes ( all cause mortality ) have steadily climbed and have been above the ONS 5 year average in weeks 14 and 15 .
The ONS calculate the mean average from the 5 preceding years completed statistics .
This means that any year prior to 2014 , many with much higher than average mortality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average .
There is no evidence that this years all cause mortality in England and Wales is in any way unprecedented .
In recent history 1995 , 1996 , 1998 , 1999 and 2017 have all been years with comparable , if not higher mortality .
None were deemed reason to force the population to incarcerate themselves .
The demographics of the UK show a growing but ageing population .
Age is the primary corollary for normal mortality and C19 is no different .
The ONS expect the 5 year average figure to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ age .
The MSM regularly report C19 suspected deaths among the relatively young .
This is to give you the impression that C19 can strike anyone at anytime .
What they consistently fail to mention is that PHE records of ICU admissions for influenza indicate all ages are at risk from the flu .
This is not the case with C19 .
Its risks apparently increase with age .
There was a media frenzy when the ONS released their all cause mortality statistics for Week 15 .
This showed there were 7,996 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In total 6,213 mentioned C19 .
Despite the MSM ’ s attempt to convince you this somehow proves C19 is a modern day plague , a cursory look at the data demonstrates that it is no such thing .
The ONS noted that these were the highest single-week mortality figure for England and Wales since 2000 .
This is true , however the historical data also demonstrates that one-week statistical record was exceeded in 2000 , 1999 and 1997 .
Bluntly , not only is there nothing unprecedented about the overall mortality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t anything new either .
To further put this into perspective , the population of England and Wales in 2000 was just under 53 million .
In 2020 it conservatively stands at more than 60 million .
That ’ s more than a 13 % increase in 20 years , with a notable ageing of the population over the same period .
Normalising for population growth alone , irrespective of ageing , if 20,566 died in one week in 2000 then week 15 mortality figures in 2020 are equivalent to 16,109 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in relative terms .
If we take similar normalisation into account for previous years of high mortality ( 1995 , 1996 , 1998 , 199 ) then , as a percentage of population , relative 2020 mortality statistics are well below those years and further below 2017 .
As the death rate from C19 reduces in the UK , it is clear that the C19 threat level never warranted the lockdown regime and the collapse of the economy .
At the risk of being accused of heresy , it is absolutely possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu in many respects .
LOKIN-20 Seen In The Data As usual , in their week 15 report , the ONS noted what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to inflate the C19 mortality statistics .
Of the 6,213 reported C19 deaths , for week 15 in England and Wales , 2,333 also mentioned both influenza and pneumonia .
It is impossible to see how these deaths can legitimately be called C19 deaths .
Consequently , all that can be said is that of the 7,996 excess deaths , beyond the 5-year average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own , though we know from previous releases that more than 90 % of those had at least one other serious comorbidity .
The remaining 4116 deaths were also attributable to at least one other infection and additional comorbidities .
The confusion about causes of death has been highlighted by the Royal College of Pathologists who have called for a systemic review .
The Health Service Journal reported that there was “ uncertainty ” about reported C19 deaths and questions remained about how many may have died as a “ knock on ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for scepticism becomes clearer when we look at comparative death in the first 15 weeks of 2020 .
This shows considerably higher numbers of deaths from respiratory infections other than C19 in England and Wales .
When we also consider that attribution of C19 deaths are uniquely vague , and that a considerable proportion may well be attributable to influenza or other respiratory infections , the MSM ’ s insistence that C19 is the only story doesn ’ t stack up .
Something else is happening too .
Frankly , we have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from C19 .
Nor does the UK State .
Speaking on the 18th March the UK ’ s Chief Scientific Officer , former GlaxoSmithKline head of research and development , Sir Patrick Valance , clarified the situation for the British people .
He stated : The difference appears to be that the C19 is the first disease in history from which you can officially die without any firm evidence that you actually had it .
The symptoms of C19 are very hard to distinguish from symptoms of other respiratory infections , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from symptoms alone seems even more unreliable than the RT-PCR test .
Yet the ONS confirmed this is how C19 can be identified as a cause of death : This is a consequence of the State ’ s advice to doctors which informs them : As recorded C19 mortality shows a decline , once again , the state is changing the way statistics are recorded .
It has now asked the Care Quality Commission ( CQC ) to record more suspected cases from social care settings .
Speaking on the April 14th a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system for recording hospital C19 deaths is questionable the one suggested by the CQC for care homes is downright bizarre .
At the request of the State the CQC have asked non medically trained care home providers to report , what they suspect , are C19 cases .
These figures will then be added to the claimed C19 mortality figures .
The lack of testing in care settings suggest the CQC will be adding far more suspected cases to the ONS statistics than confirmed .
Care homes , other than nursing homes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The vast majority of those who suspect C19 from care homes won ’ t be basing their suspicions on qualified medical opinions .
The claimed C19 mortality figures are so disparate they have become practically worthless from a statistical perspective .
Even if we accept all reported C19 deaths resulted from it , which is a very long stretch , clearly something else is also pushing up excess mortality in England and Wales .
Over the two week period of weeks 14 and 15 , of the 14,078 additional deaths , 8189 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other than just C19 .
We don ’ t yet know what other factors may be playing a part in the increase .
All we can say is that excess mortality was unusually high and , at most , plausibly claimed C19 deaths accounted for less than 42 % of those deaths .
So what other changes may have impacted mortality this year ?
One in particular stands out .
The lockdown itself .
Are we starting to see the consequences ?
Could we call this LOKIN-20 ?
LOKIN-20 appears to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime .
Those most at risk from LOKIN-20 are the same people who are at highest risk from C19 .
This additional “ wave ” of mortality , as a direct consequence of the lockdown , has recently been highlighted by NHS data analysts Edge Health .
Based upon ONS weekly figures , their comparative analysis of excess mortality and A & E attendance highlighted the significant impact of LOKIN-20 .
Speaking of an initial second and then third wave of mortality , from the impact of the lockdown , the co-founder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If projected forwards , these numbers get so large it is hard to relate to them on a personal level .
Unlike the current peaks , this third wave may be spread out over a longer period of time .
But make no mistake this could be could be a very deadly wave.
” Those who require home care , vulnerable adults in care settings and older people in care homes , have been all but abandoned by the State .
This is a direct result of its counterproductive lockdown regime .
Dying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptom of LOKIN-20 .
During the alleged response to the C19 pandemic you might imagine the State would streamline vulnerable people ’ s access to potentially lifesaving medical interventions .
However , it has done the precise opposite .
Spreading disinformation , the MSM reported that there were 7,500 C19 deaths in care homes in weeks 14 and 15 .
This was fake news .
Of the 7,500 excess care home deaths only 1,500 were attributed to C19 .
Analysis by the Health Service Journal ( HSJ ) found that 80 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They identified 6000 people , without diagnosed C19 , who had died in care or at home .
Were it not for the lockdown these people would otherwise have gone to hospital .
The HSJ assumed these people would have died anyway , and they may well be right .
But who knows how many would still be with us had they received the hospital care they needed .
This appears to be just one of the health consequences of the States lockdown regime .
It seems to be precipitating vulnerable people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways .
During the same period the NHS issued guidance which stated care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital .
At the same time ambulance response times increased dramatically .
Being unable to get emergency medical support when you need it is another apparent LOKIN-20 symptom .
Rather than more closely monitoring care homes and isolating vulnerable people from infection , the State decided not to bother .
The care industry has been calling for widespread testing and Personal Protective Equipment ( PPE ) since the start of the outbreak .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ PPE has materialised .
There is currently considerable capacity within the NHS for the people dying in care homes to be treated in hospital .
The State continues to build Nightingale Hospitals across the country , most of which are completely empty .
While we are misled into believing people are dying in their many thousands in care homes from C19 , it appears most are dying from a lack of treatment from every condition other than C19 .
Instead of providing medical treatment there are widespread reports of residents having “ do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notices attached to their care plans by visiting NHS practitioners .
Other more vulnerable adults , such as those with learning difficulties , who frequently have additional comorbidities , are also effectively being told to drop dead .
The UK ’ s home care industry , providing care to older people living in their own homes , warns that many providers are unable to cope with the additional costs imposed upon them by the lockdown regime .
Raina Summerson , the chief executive of one of England ’ s largest home care provider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of funding and sky-high costs of PPE , there will be providers who go bust….Overnight , local authorities will have the responsibility of picking up care for bankrupt providers but will not have resources to do so .
It could well mean people left without care and , in the worst-case scenarios , falling through the cracks and dying alone at home.
” The UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock recently made the magnanimous gesture of allowing families to see their loved ones who were dying of C19 in care homes .
Whether that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority who are seemingly dying from a lack of medical treatment isn ’ t clear .
Meanwhile , under his watch , either by design or rank ineptitude , the UK State has effectively created what appears to be a euthanasia program .
His platitudes are grotesque .
Accident and Emergency attendance has dropped to a record low while the percentage of admissions following attendance have risen to a record high .
This means people are presenting to A & E for suspected C19 but little else .
However , given the dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many are simply not making it to A & E alive .
Dr Katherine Henderson , the President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine , stated : I think we can all agree that the State and the MSM have ramped up fear of C19 to quite extraordinary levels .
As we have discussed , the medical and scientific justification for this is largely absent .
The propaganda seems primarily designed to justify the lockdown regime .
It is absurd for the State and senior health professionals to now express concern that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they need to .
Of course they aren ’ t .
To claim this was unforeseen is ridiculous .
The whole UK propaganda narrative has urged people both to be terrified of a flu-like illness and stay away from health services to “ protect the NHS.
” The first annual increase in coronary heart disease mortality in the UK , following nearly two decades of steady reductions in the UK , was noted last year , before LOKIN-20 began .
The former president of the Society for Acute Medicine Dr Nick Scriven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people sitting at home ill and not attending A & E [ … ] people feeling sick at home or having a heart attack and not coming to hospital as they are frightened…We have seen a few sick young people just sitting at home for five or six days getting worse and worse ” .
The president of the British Cardiovascular Society Simon Ray stated : “ It seems there has been a uniform reduction in hospital attendances for heart attacks…..it ’ s around 40 % down in terms of callouts for emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be substantial reduction in referrals in for acute coronary syndrome….A number of units have also reported people presenting late with complications due to having a heart attack that we don ’ t normally see .
The concern is people sitting out symptoms rather than calling help.
” It is clear , people with acute need for cardiovascular treatment are not presenting to hospital as they otherwise would .
Fear driven reluctance to access health services , when they are most needed , appears to be another symptom of LOKIN-20 .
Around 170,000 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK .
A 40 % reduction in callouts present a potential health crisis which dwarfs any perceived risk from C19 .
This is entirely due to the lockdown .
Part of what we might call the LOKIN-20 condition .
There is no “ surge ” in C19 patients and there are more empty hospital beds than ever before .
Yet the risk to cancer patients from withheld treatment has increased significantly during the same period .
Thanks to LOKIN-20 .
This prompted Gordon Wishart , Professor of Cancer Surgery at Anglia Ruskin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State officials urging the rapid reestablishment of access to screening and treatment for cancer patients .
He stated : How many of the additional deaths we are seeing now are caused by LOKIN-20 ?
Early indications from the ONS suggest the lockdown regime is having a considerable additional impact upon the nation ’ s health .
Approximately 84 % of people surveyed stated they were worried about C19 .
Nearly half reported an increase in anxiety levels .
Anxiety increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and a range of other health conditions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased levels of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents .
LOKIN-20 is seemingly creating a mental health crisis too .
Depression often has a lifelong impact and substance misuse , domestic abuse , low income and other comorbidities are all frequent consequences .
The head of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge Professor Ed Bullmore reported : However , it is not the pandemic that is “ increasing unemployment ” and “ separating families ” but rather the baseless lockdown regime of the State .
The kind of economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlike C19 , is genuinely unprecedented .
The Office of Budget Responsibility ( OBR ) predict a 35 % drop in the UK ’ s GDP with an additional 2 million job losses .
For some reason they envisage the UK economy will instantly recover from this hammer blow .
Others are far less confident .
The Institute for Social and Economic Research ( ISER ) predict that nearly one quarter of UK jobs ( more than 6.5 million ) will be lost thanks to the lockdown .
Failing to see the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they state : Whether the OBR or the ISER predictions are accurate it is obvious that the economic and social impacts of the lockdown regime will be catastrophic .
Social deprivations and poverty , already on the rise before the alleged C19 pandemic , are set to soar .
The link between economic deprivation and mortality is not in doubt .
Between 2001 and 2016 economic and social deprivation in England consistently accounted for a staggering 9.3 year average reduced life expectancy for males and , by 2016 , shortened women ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives will be cut short by LOKIN-20 .
It is a very sad reality to acknowledge that the loss of life from COVID-19 is as nothing by comparison .
LOKIN-20 won ’ t end in a few weeks .
It will continue for years to come .
The longer the State persists with its destructive lockdown regime the worse will be the consequences of LOKIN-20 .

A new public health crisis, very recently identified as LOKIN-20, is raising increasing health concerns in the UK. In their response to a respiratory illness called COVID-19 (C19) the UK State are among those who have responded by locking up their populations and destroying their own national economy. This appears to be causing LOKIN-20.
The most recent statistics from UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) raise significant concerns about health impact of the lockdown regimes favoured by some, but not all, governments. All in response to a disease which researchers at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University estimate to have an infection fatality rate (IFR) of between 0.1% and 0.36%. Similar to seasonal flu.
Of course, a syndrome called LOKIN-20 hasn’t been identified as a cause of death. However, in light of the current data, this post asks if it should.
LOKIN-20 and the Lack of Scientific Justification
Both Public Health England (PHE) and the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) were satisfied that COVID-19 (C19) presented a “low risk” of mortality and downgraded it from the status of a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) on March 19th. The ACDP board members include Professor Neil Ferguson from Imperial College. Presumably Prof. Ferguson was among the dissenting voices on the ACDP board as he completely ignored the majority opinion of his scientific colleagues.
In an interview on 13th February, widely reported by the mainstream media (MSM), he stated his predictive models were “not absurd.”
He said that infection rates of 60% of the population with a 1% mortality rate were possible. Standing by his prediction of 400,000 C19 deaths in the UK. The Imperial College computer model report was released to the public on 16th March, predicting huge numbers of deaths from C19. By the 19th March Prof. Ferguson must have known a majority of his peers disagreed with him.
When it comes to wildly inaccurate predictions Prof. Ferguson’s work at Imperial College has a long and distinguished history. In 2002, he said that 50,000 people in the UK would die from “mad cow disease”, to date less than 200 have passed away; he predicted 200 million global deaths from the H5N1 bird flu. Currently it is a suspected factor in the deaths of 455 people world wide; in 2009 he told the UK Government that 65,000 could die from swine flu in the UK and worked with the World Health Organisation to predict millions of deaths from the H1N1 global flu pandemic.
Suspected resultant UK deaths from swine flu were estimated to be 457 and the global total showed 18,500 laboratory-confirmed deaths from the H1N1 pandemic. The U.S. Center For Disease Control (CDC) claim there were many more, though their estimate varies between 150,000 and 500,000.
Quite an error margin and still considerably less than Imperial Colleges fantasy. The CDC is heavily funded by flu vaccine manufacturers.
While Prof. Ferguson and his Imperial College colleagues have been consistently wrong they have also been unquestioningly believed by governments and intergovernmental bodies on every occasion. Seemingly without reservation.
Despite the clear evidence to the contrary, policy makers from all political parties have shown tremendous loyalty to Imperial College’s silly data models. In doing so, they have not only ignored the researchers woeful history of failed predictions but have also denied the scientific evidence which usually contradicts them.
In no way can basing policy decisions on Imperial Colleges computer models be considered science led decision making. Quite the opposite.
LOKIN-20 And Lockdown Madness
Farr’s Law is observed with all viral diseases and describes the rate at which a viral infections increases and then declines in a given population. Initially, the virus has practically unlimited hosts and the rate of increasing infection is exponential.
As more people become infected that rate declines. The numbers still increase but the rate of that increase drops sharply. Once the rate starts to decline virologists and epidemiologists can then predict the scale of the outbreak with some confidence.
It indicates that the disease has passed its peak potential and will wane naturally in the coming days and weeks. Regardless of intervention.
Based upon UK statistics released by Worldometer we can see this initial rapidly increasing rate of infection and identify when that rate began to slow down. For the 50 day inclusive period, between the February 25th until April 15th, this changing rate of increase was evident.
That rate peaked on the March 4th and has declined since. Following the drop in this rate on the 4th, with a consistent downward trend to March 16th, the scientists on the ACDP board could predict the trajectory of the disease with some certainty and consequently downgraded C19 due to low mortality rates.
Calculating the daily rate of increase can be done simply by dividing the current day’s total number of cases by the previous days total. For example, on March 3rd there were 51 total cases rising by 36, to reach a total of 87, by March 4th. A ratio rate increase of 0.71.
This was the peak rate of increasing infections in the UK. From this date onward the rate of increase declined markedly, in accordance with Farr’s Law. We can plot these figures to find the changing rate of the increase in cases.
This slowing rate of new infections is also evident when we look at the logarithmic scale of UK Infections rates. This produces the familiar infection rate curve synonymous with Farr’s Law.
The UK government are among the many who apparently ignored the most basic concepts in virology and chose instead to base their lockdown regime upon the fictitious Imperial College models. All the science indicated that existing measures, encouraging the public to observe basic hygiene and limit interactions with vulnerable people, was working, as C19 followed the normal bell curve of any viral disease in a population.
There was no scientific justification for the lockdown. Nothing about the UK State’s response was “led by the science.”
Nor is there any evidence that lockdown regimes have any positive impact upon infections rates. Comparisons between severe lockdown states and those who opted for less draconian measures reveal no advantage to placing your population under house arrest.
States who chosen not to rip their economies apart appear to have fared much better. Sweden did not deploy a lockdown and yet, according to data from John Hopkin’s University, case rates per million of populations are lower.
Further comparative analysis supports these findings. In terms of limiting infection rates, there is no discernible benefit to lockdown regimes. In fact, Oxford University found a direct correlation between infection rates and the relative severity of lockdown regimes. It suggests the more stringent the lockdown, the higher the infection rate.
This is not unexpected, as numerous epidemiological studies have shown that infection rates for C19 are higher when people are exposed to it for prolonged periods in confined spaces. Locking people up in their homes is probably the worst thing you could do if you wanted to reduce the infections and the duration of the outbreak.
This is well known to the World Health Organisation. In their joint study with Chinese authorities, published in February, the WHO stated that airborne spread wasn’t reported for C19 and was not considered to be a method of transmission.
They found that most infections occurred within families where the chance of infection was as high as 20%. However, the chance of infection in the community was estimated to be between 1-5%.
The WHO also stated that COVID 19 is less virulent than influenza. They say it is spread by droplets and cannot linger in the air. Equally there is little evidence that flu transmission is airborne. The comparison between C19 and influenza is worth considering as we discuss LOKIN 20.
LOKIN-20 Lurks Behind the Data
About the only consistent element of the narrative we have been given about C19 is that we must believe the death toll is horrendous. This “alarmism” has been spread by State officials and the mainstream media (MSM). It is unmitigated drivel.
Here are some important factors to bear in mind whenever the MSM give you statistics about alleged deaths from C19 in the UK. These factors are unique to C19.
The ONS recording system was changed by the State, but only for C19, from recording only registered deaths to adding in provisional deaths assumed to be from C19. The RT-PCR test for C19 does not appear to be very reliable. Furthermore, the man who won the Nobel Prize for designing it specifically stated that it could not identify a virus. As previously stated, emerging studies indicate a much higher infection and thus much lower mortality rate for C19.
However, in the UK, a positive test is not even required for someone to be deemed to have died from C19. Nor does there need to be any clear evidence of causality for C19 to be declared as the underlying cause of death.
Merely “mentioning” C19 is considered sufficient. Regardless of other, often multiple, comorbidities and infections. In addition, from an age demographic perspective, C19 deaths appear to be indistinguishable from quite normal mortality.
The Office of National Statistics (ONS) have reported a consistent rise in mortality between weeks 11 – 15, covering the period 7th March to 10th April 2020 in England and Wales. During that period deaths from all causes (all cause mortality) have steadily climbed and have been above the ONS 5 year average in weeks 14 and 15.
The ONS calculate the mean average from the 5 preceding years completed statistics. This means that any year prior to 2014, many with much higher than average mortality, are not used to calculate the current average.
There is no evidence that this years all cause mortality in England and Wales is in any way unprecedented. In recent history 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2017 have all been years with comparable, if not higher mortality. None were deemed reason to force the population to incarcerate themselves.
The demographics of the UK show a growing but ageing population. Age is the primary corollary for normal mortality and C19 is no different. The ONS expect the 5 year average figure to steadily increase while the population continues to age.
The MSM regularly report C19 suspected deaths among the relatively young. This is to give you the impression that C19 can strike anyone at anytime.
What they consistently fail to mention is that PHE records of ICU admissions for influenza indicate all ages are at risk from the flu. This is not the case with C19. Its risks apparently increase with age.
There was a media frenzy when the ONS released their all cause mortality statistics for Week 15.
This showed there were 7,996 deaths over and above the 5 year average. In total 6,213 mentioned C19. Despite the MSM’s attempt to convince you this somehow proves C19 is a modern day plague, a cursory look at the data demonstrates that it is no such thing.
The ONS noted that these were the highest single-week mortality figure for England and Wales since 2000. This is true, however the historical data also demonstrates that one-week statistical record was exceeded in 2000, 1999 and 1997. Bluntly, not only is there nothing unprecedented about the overall mortality figures, the high one week spike isn’t anything new either.
To further put this into perspective, the population of England and Wales in 2000 was just under 53 million. In 2020 it conservatively stands at more than 60 million. That’s more than a 13% increase in 20 years, with a notable ageing of the population over the same period.
Normalising for population growth alone, irrespective of ageing, if 20,566 died in one week in 2000 then week 15 mortality figures in 2020 are equivalent to 16,109. About 4,450 fewer than in 2000, in relative terms. If we take similar normalisation into account for previous years of high mortality (1995, 1996, 1998, 199) then, as a percentage of population, relative 2020 mortality statistics are well below those years and further below 2017.
As the death rate from C19 reduces in the UK, it is clear that the C19 threat level never warranted the lockdown regime and the collapse of the economy. At the risk of being accused of heresy, it is absolutely possible to state that C19 is like the flu in many respects.
LOKIN-20 Seen In The Data
As usual, in their week 15 report, the ONS noted what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to inflate the C19 mortality statistics. Of the 6,213 reported C19 deaths, for week 15 in England and Wales, 2,333 also mentioned both influenza and pneumonia. It is impossible to see how these deaths can legitimately be called C19 deaths.
Consequently, all that can be said is that of the 7,996 excess deaths, beyond the 5-year average, 3880 deaths mentioned C19 on its own, though we know from previous releases that more than 90% of those had at least one other serious comorbidity. The remaining 4116 deaths were also attributable to at least one other infection and additional comorbidities.
The confusion about causes of death has been highlighted by the Royal College of Pathologists who have called for a systemic review. The Health Service Journal reported that there was “uncertainty” about reported C19 deaths and questions remained about how many may have died as a “knock on” consequence of the lockdown.
The reasons for scepticism becomes clearer when we look at comparative death in the first 15 weeks of 2020. This shows considerably higher numbers of deaths from respiratory infections other than C19 in England and Wales.
When we also consider that attribution of C19 deaths are uniquely vague, and that a considerable proportion may well be attributable to influenza or other respiratory infections, the MSM’s insistence that C19 is the only story doesn’t stack up. Something else is happening too.
Frankly, we have no idea how many people have actually died from C19. Nor does the UK State.
Speaking on the 18th March the UK’s Chief Scientific Officer, former GlaxoSmithKline head of research and development, Sir Patrick Valance, clarified the situation for the British people. He stated:
It is worth remembering again that the ONS rates are people who’ve got COVID on their death certificates. It doesn’t mean they were necessarily infected because many of them haven’t been tested. So we just need to understand the difference.”
The difference appears to be that the C19 is the first disease in history from which you can officially die without any firm evidence that you actually had it.
The symptoms of C19 are very hard to distinguish from symptoms of other respiratory infections, such as influenza and the common cold. Diagnoses from symptoms alone seems even more unreliable than the RT-PCR test. Yet the ONS confirmed this is how C19 can be identified as a cause of death:
A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID-19 based on symptoms and clinical findings – a positive test result is not required.”
This is a consequence of the State’s advice to doctors which informs them:
if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID 19 infection….it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death.”
As recorded C19 mortality shows a decline, once again, the state is changing the way statistics are recorded. It has now asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to record more suspected cases from social care settings. Speaking on the April 14th a CQC spokesperson reportedly said:
From this week, the death notifications we collect from providers will allow them to report whether the death was of a person with suspected or confirmed Covid-19.”
If the system for recording hospital C19 deaths is questionable the one suggested by the CQC for care homes is downright bizarre. At the request of the State the CQC have asked non medically trained care home providers to report, what they suspect, are C19 cases. These figures will then be added to the claimed C19 mortality figures.
The lack of testing in care settings suggest the CQC will be adding far more suspected cases to the ONS statistics than confirmed. Care homes, other than nursing homes, do not typically retain medically trained staff. The vast majority of those who suspect C19 from care homes won’t be basing their suspicions on qualified medical opinions.
The claimed C19 mortality figures are so disparate they have become practically worthless from a statistical perspective. Even if we accept all reported C19 deaths resulted from it, which is a very long stretch, clearly something else is also pushing up excess mortality in England and Wales.
Over the two week period of weeks 14 and 15, of the 14,078 additional deaths, 8189 people lost their lives due to something other than just C19. We don’t yet know what other factors may be playing a part in the increase. All we can say is that excess mortality was unusually high and, at most, plausibly claimed C19 deaths accounted for less than 42% of those deaths.
So what other changes may have impacted mortality this year? One in particular stands out. The lockdown itself.
Are we starting to see the consequences? Could we call this LOKIN-20?
The evidence strongly suggests that possibility.
LOKIN-20 Disproportionately Affects The Most Vulnerable
LOKIN-20 appears to be the increased health risk caused by the lockdown regime. Those most at risk from LOKIN-20 are the same people who are at highest risk from C19. This additional “wave” of mortality, as a direct consequence of the lockdown, has recently been highlighted by NHS data analysts Edge Health.
Based upon ONS weekly figures, their comparative analysis of excess mortality and A&E attendance highlighted the significant impact of LOKIN-20. Speaking of an initial second and then third wave of mortality, from the impact of the lockdown, the co-founder of Edge Health George Batchelor said:
“If projected forwards, these numbers get so large it is hard to relate to them on a personal level. Unlike the current peaks, this third wave may be spread out over a longer period of time. But make no mistake this could be could be a very deadly wave.”
Those who require home care, vulnerable adults in care settings and older people in care homes, have been all but abandoned by the State. This is a direct result of its counterproductive lockdown regime. Dying from systemic neglect appears to be a symptom of LOKIN-20.
During the alleged response to the C19 pandemic you might imagine the State would streamline vulnerable people’s access to potentially lifesaving medical interventions. However, it has done the precise opposite.
Spreading disinformation, the MSM reported that there were 7,500 C19 deaths in care homes in weeks 14 and 15. This was fake news.
Of the 7,500 excess care home deaths only 1,500 were attributed to C19. Analysis by the Health Service Journal (HSJ) found that 80% of these people probably died from something else.
They identified 6000 people, without diagnosed C19, who had died in care or at home. Were it not for the lockdown these people would otherwise have gone to hospital.
The HSJ assumed these people would have died anyway, and they may well be right. But who knows how many would still be with us had they received the hospital care they needed.
This appears to be just one of the health consequences of the States lockdown regime. It seems to be precipitating vulnerable people’s deaths in a variety of ways.
During the same period the NHS issued guidance which stated care home residents should not be conveyed to hospital. At the same time ambulance response times increased dramatically. Being unable to get emergency medical support when you need it is another apparent LOKIN-20 symptom.
Rather than more closely monitoring care homes and isolating vulnerable people from infection, the State decided not to bother. The care industry has been calling for widespread testing and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) since the start of the outbreak. So far neither the testing nor the PPE has materialised.
There is currently considerable capacity within the NHS for the people dying in care homes to be treated in hospital. The State continues to build Nightingale Hospitals across the country, most of which are completely empty . While we are misled into believing people are dying in their many thousands in care homes from C19, it appears most are dying from a lack of treatment from every condition other than C19.
Instead of providing medical treatment there are widespread reports of residents having “do not attempt resuscitation” (DNAR) notices attached to their care plans by visiting NHS practitioners. Other more vulnerable adults, such as those with learning difficulties, who frequently have additional comorbidities, are also effectively being told to drop dead.
The UK’s home care industry, providing care to older people living in their own homes, warns that many providers are unable to cope with the additional costs imposed upon them by the lockdown regime.
Raina Summerson, the chief executive of one of England’s largest home care provider Agincare said:
“With a lack of funding and sky-high costs of PPE, there will be providers who go bust….Overnight, local authorities will have the responsibility of picking up care for bankrupt providers but will not have resources to do so. It could well mean people left without care and, in the worst-case scenarios, falling through the cracks and dying alone at home.”
The UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock recently made the magnanimous gesture of allowing families to see their loved ones who were dying of C19 in care homes. Whether that offer extends to the families of the majority who are seemingly dying from a lack of medical treatment isn’t clear.
Meanwhile, under his watch, either by design or rank ineptitude, the UK State has effectively created what appears to be a euthanasia program. His platitudes are grotesque.
LOKIN-20 Is Everywhere
Accident and Emergency attendance has dropped to a record low while the percentage of admissions following attendance have risen to a record high. This means people are presenting to A&E for suspected C19 but little else. However, given the dramatic increase in ambulance response times, perhaps many are simply not making it to A&E alive.
Dr Katherine Henderson, the President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, stated:
We are concerned that this drop in attendance may mean that people with serious health problems are avoiding going to their emergency department for fear of getting coronavirus….Even before Covid-19, we knew that patients were getting sicker – people are living longer and acquiring more health problems……The most important thing the public can do at the moment is to stay indoors and follow the government’s advice…..But do seek medical help if you need it – don’t stay at home with a heart attack out of fear.”
I think we can all agree that the State and the MSM have ramped up fear of C19 to quite extraordinary levels. As we have discussed, the medical and scientific justification for this is largely absent. The propaganda seems primarily designed to justify the lockdown regime.
It is absurd for the State and senior health professionals to now express concern that people aren’t going to hospital when they need to. Of course they aren’t.
To claim this was unforeseen is ridiculous. The whole UK propaganda narrative has urged people both to be terrified of a flu-like illness and stay away from health services to “protect the NHS.” The first annual increase in coronary heart disease mortality in the UK, following nearly two decades of steady reductions in the UK, was noted last year, before LOKIN-20 began.
The former president of the Society for Acute Medicine Dr Nick Scriven stated:
“The biggest fear is people sitting at home ill and not attending A&E […] people feeling sick at home or having a heart attack and not coming to hospital as they are frightened…We have seen a few sick young people just sitting at home for five or six days getting worse and worse”.
The president of the British Cardiovascular Society Simon Ray stated:
“It seems there has been a uniform reduction in hospital attendances for heart attacks…..it’s around 40% down in terms of callouts for emergency treatment for heart attacks….There also seems to be substantial reduction in referrals in for acute coronary syndrome….A number of units have also reported people presenting late with complications due to having a heart attack that we don’t normally see. The concern is people sitting out symptoms rather than calling help.”
It is clear, people with acute need for cardiovascular treatment are not presenting to hospital as they otherwise would. Fear driven reluctance to access health services, when they are most needed, appears to be another symptom of LOKIN-20.
Around 170,000 people die every year from cardiovascular disease in the UK. A 40% reduction in callouts present a potential health crisis which dwarfs any perceived risk from C19.
This is entirely due to the lockdown. Part of what we might call the LOKIN-20 condition.
There is no “surge” in C19 patients and there are more empty hospital beds than ever before. Yet the risk to cancer patients from withheld treatment has increased significantly during the same period. Thanks to LOKIN-20.
This prompted Gordon Wishart, Professor of Cancer Surgery at Anglia Ruskin School of Medicine, to write to State officials urging the rapid reestablishment of access to screening and treatment for cancer patients. He stated:
We pushed the panic button and there was a knee-jerk reaction when it was thought there would be hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid […] However, in the event it seems we are at or near the peak and that capacity has not been needed […] We have the worst cancer survival rates compared with many of our European neighbours […] We are not in a position to cope with any increased demand at the end of lockdown.”
A leading heart surgeon, Professor Stephen Westaby, said:
…We could see thousands of deaths from heart disease and cancer over the next six months. Their families will never forget this. Neither China nor Italy stopped treating these conditions despite the chaos there earlier this year. It’s bizarre.”
How many of the additional deaths we are seeing now are caused by LOKIN-20?
Early indications from the ONS suggest the lockdown regime is having a considerable additional impact upon the nation’s health. Approximately 84% of people surveyed stated they were worried about C19. Nearly half reported an increase in anxiety levels.
Anxiety increases the risk of cardiovascular disease and a range of other health conditions. Studies have shown a clear link between increased levels of anxiety and depression in children and adolescents. LOKIN-20 is seemingly creating a mental health crisis too.
Depression often has a lifelong impact and substance misuse, domestic abuse, low income and other comorbidities are all frequent consequences. The head of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge Professor Ed Bullmore reported:
The pandemic is clearly having a major social and psychological impact on the whole population, increasing unemployment, separating families and various other changes in the way that we live that we know are generally major psychological risk factors for anxiety, depression and self-harm.”
However, it is not the pandemic that is “increasing unemployment” and “separating families” but rather the baseless lockdown regime of the State.
The kind of economic devastation caused by the lockdown regime, unlike C19, is genuinely unprecedented. The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) predict a 35% drop in the UK’s GDP with an additional 2 million job losses. For some reason they envisage the UK economy will instantly recover from this hammer blow. Others are far less confident.
The Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) predict that nearly one quarter of UK jobs (more than 6.5 million) will be lost thanks to the lockdown. Failing to see the “bounce back” predicted by the OBR they state:
Our baseline scenario predicts an overall contraction in GDP and employment of around 20%.”
Whether the OBR or the ISER predictions are accurate it is obvious that the economic and social impacts of the lockdown regime will be catastrophic.
Social deprivations and poverty, already on the rise before the alleged C19 pandemic, are set to soar. The link between economic deprivation and mortality is not in doubt.
Between 2001 and 2016 economic and social deprivation in England consistently accounted for a staggering 9.3 year average reduced life expectancy for males and, by 2016, shortened women’s lives by 7.4 years. Millions of lives will be cut short by LOKIN-20.
It is a very sad reality to acknowledge that the loss of life from COVID-19 is as nothing by comparison. LOKIN-20 won’t end in a few weeks. It will continue for years to come. The longer the State persists with its destructive lockdown regime the worse will be the consequences of LOKIN-20.


offguardian--2020-04-30--WATCH: Perspectives on the Pandemic #5

WATCH: Perspectives on the Pandemic #5

In this highly-charged follow-up interview , Knut Wittkowski says his initial claim has been vindicated Following up his original interview @ @ @ @ @ the mainstream coverage of his opinions , recent studies on the numbers of infected in @ @ @ @ @ Swedish government ’ s approach and much , much more .
The Interviewer : John @ @ @ @ @ FOUR DIED TRYING , a feature documentary and series on the major assassinations of the @ @ @ @ @ calamitous impact on the country .
To join the struggle for justice for Dr. King @ @ @ @ @ John and Robert Kennedy .
The Interviewee : Professor Knut Wittkowski was head of The @ @ @ @ @ of Biostatistics , Epidemiology , and Research Design for 20 years .
Follow Journeyman Pictures @ @ @ @ @ website for more of their award-winning factual content .
For all previous episodes of Perspectives @ @ @ @ @ .

In this highly-charged follow-up interview, Knut Wittkowski says his initial claim has been vindicated
Following up his original interview, Prof Knut Wittkowski discusses the mainstream coverage of his opinions, recent studies on the numbers of infected in New York, and the Swedish government’s approach and much, much more.
The Interviewer: John Kirby is the director of FOUR DIED TRYING, a feature documentary and series on the major assassinations of the 1960’s and their calamitous impact on the country. To join the struggle for justice for Dr. King, Malcolm X, and John and Robert Kennedy.
The Interviewee: Professor Knut Wittkowski was head of The Rockefeller University’s Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design for 20 years.
Follow Journeyman Pictures on youtube or visit their website for more of their award-winning factual content.
For all previous episodes of Perspectives on the Pandemic click here.


offguardian--2020-04-30--An open letter from Philip Roddis to OffG

This comment was made by a reader , below a recent post on my blogsite .
I ’ m one of your many fans .
I support you by recommendation to friends and readers , links to your articles and a monthly s/o .
Granted , that last is for a piddling amount but I am an OAP , and like to think every little helps .
I also write posts that give you good quality content , me a wider audience .
This necessitates correspondence with the editors , in the course of which I ’ ve come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t met , as friends .
Unusually intelligent ones at that .
Then along came Covid-19 .
On which you ’ ve posted good stuff , referenced in my own posts on the subject .
It has , however , focused exclusively on one aspect of the pandemic : the real concern that our rulers are using it to remove hard won liberties .
That ’ s an important aspect and , through articles questioning CV-19 ’ s actual as opposed to claimed severity , I ’ ve learned much from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and many other questioners of the mainstream narrative featured on Off-Guardian .
I do , however , give equal weight to a Left voice ignored by Off-Guardian .
Whether or not the pandemic is overstated – and my view is it ’ s too early to call either way – it shines a torch as never before in my lifetime on the rottenness of capitalism , with its systemic inability to put people before profits .
It ’ s true this same Left has done the mirror opposite .
Its focus on capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ require that it play up the severity of Covid-19 , just as your libertarian instincts do not in logic require you to play down the same .
Yet in practice – since we are as much psychological as logical animals – things don ’ t work that way .
We decide what ’ s important and what ’ s true – in that order – then go hunting for evidence to prove We are right ; They are wrong .
As Dr John Lee said in a recent Spectator piece : As it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s piece favours those who question CV-19 ’ s severity , as well as social distancing and the science informing it .
But it flags up a truth no camp – lockdowners , herd immunitists , ‘ no-worse-than-flu ’ pundits – may claim as their property .
In reality scientific opinion , like the imperfect and highly confusing data from across the globe – here accused of overcounting CV-19 deaths , there of the precise opposite , is sharply divided , while tales from the frontline are worryingly rare and , again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK .
A Barcelona friend whose thirty something daughter is a frontline carer at the city ’ s biggest hospital tells me no one there has experienced anything like the pressure all are under .
There is of course a nationalist dimension since Madrid is widely believed to have diverted resource – for instance PPE donated by China , a long term friend of Catalunya – away from the city .
Such sharp divisions of relevant expert opinion , statistical data and the experiences of nurses , doctors and other frontline health carers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond epistemology .
History may show ( or not ) who is right and who wrong on the question of Covid-19 ’ s severity , and on whether steps taken in the name of seeing it off will outlive the pandemic to hammer further nails in the coffin of liberty .
On such matters we may pick the wrong side .
Which side that is we can ’ t yet know , however much we make assertions to the contrary .
Meanwhile , let ’ s none of us lose sight of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be wrong , but wrong in all good faith .
Nor of the truth I flagged early on .
Whether or not the pandemic is overstated it shines a torch as never before on the rottenness of capitalism , with its systemic inability to put people before profits

Dear Off-Guardian
This comment was made by a reader, below a recent post on my blogsite.
There’s just as much fear porn bandied about in regard to narratives pushing terms and concepts such as Police State, fascist takeover etc as there is about Covid-19. And it is just as legitimate to express scepticism towards those narratives as any others.
I’m one of your many fans. I support you by recommendation to friends and readers, links to your articles and a monthly s/o. Granted, that last is for a piddling amount but I am an OAP, and like to think every little helps.
I also write posts that give you good quality content, me a wider audience. This necessitates correspondence with the editors, in the course of which I’ve come to regard you all, though we haven’t met, as friends. Unusually intelligent ones at that.
Then along came Covid-19. On which you’ve posted good stuff, referenced in my own posts on the subject. It has, however, focused exclusively on one aspect of the pandemic: the real concern that our rulers are using it to remove hard won liberties. That’s an important aspect and, through articles questioning CV-19’s actual as opposed to claimed severity, I’ve learned much from the opinions of scientists like Bhakdi, Wittkowski and many other questioners of the mainstream narrative featured on Off-Guardian.
I do, however, give equal weight to a Left voice ignored by Off-Guardian. Whether or not the pandemic is overstated – and my view is it’s too early to call either way – it shines a torch as never before in my lifetime on the rottenness of capitalism, with its systemic inability to put people before profits.
It’s true this same Left has done the mirror opposite. Its focus on capitalism’s failures does not in logic require that it play up the severity of Covid-19, just as your libertarian instincts do not in logic require you to play down the same. Yet in practice – since we are as much psychological as logical animals – things don’t work that way. We decide what’s important and what’ s true – in that order – then go hunting for evidence to prove We are right; They are wrong.
As Dr John Lee said in a recent Spectator piece:
A theory from a group of scientists is just that: a theory. Believing the opinion of that group without critical verification is just that: belief.
As it happens the thrust of Dr Lee’s piece favours those who question CV-19’s severity, as well as social distancing and the science informing it. But it flags up a truth no camp – lockdowners, herd immunitists, ‘no-worse-than-flu’ pundits – may claim as their property. In reality scientific opinion, like the imperfect and highly confusing data from across the globe – here accused of overcounting CV-19 deaths, there of the precise opposite, is sharply divided, while tales from the frontline are worryingly rare and, again, give a mixed picture even within the UK.
A Barcelona friend whose thirty something daughter is a frontline carer at the city’s biggest hospital tells me no one there has experienced anything like the pressure all are under. There is of course a nationalist dimension since Madrid is widely believed to have diverted resource – for instance PPE donated by China, a long term friend of Catalunya – away from the city.
Such sharp divisions of relevant expert opinion, statistical data and the experiences of nurses, doctors and other frontline health carers raises epistemological questions but my concerns go beyond epistemology. History may show (or not) who is right and who wrong on the question of Covid-19’s severity, and on whether steps taken in the name of seeing it off will outlive the pandemic to hammer further nails in the coffin of liberty.
On such matters we may pick the wrong side. Which side that is we can’t yet know, however much we make assertions to the contrary.
Meanwhile, let’s none of us lose sight of the fact that those with whom we disagree may be wrong, but wrong in all good faith. Nor of the truth I flagged early on.
Whether or not the pandemic is overstated it shines a torch as never before on the rottenness of capitalism, with its systemic inability to put people before profits
Regards,
Philip Roddis


offguardian--2020-05-01--Donetskflix: The unrecognized Republic offers free movies for all

As reported by other contributors to Off-G , Donetsk is daily shelled and fired upon by troops from Ukraine territory .
Residents are injured and killed by these unprovoked attacks , homes are damaged and destroyed , yet the official reports of these ceasefire violations published by the international monitoring mission from the EU ’ s OCSE ( Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe ) are , perhaps unsurprisingly , totally ignored and unreported by western MSM .
Continuing to defend itself , rather than being provoked into similar violent attacks the People ’ s Republic take a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News Agency publish recorded violations daily ensuring that the facts continue to be made available .
Not without wit and a sense of irony , the Republic ’ s leadership have today published a new law , a doctrine of freedom that allows any resident of the Republic to freely download films , texts and software from any country that does not officially recognise the Republic .
A new unique kind of weapon , delivered with tongue firmly in cheek , yet real enough .
There are some other exceptions , see the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below for the detail , including that films produced in the Republic are not free for download and viewing .
There are a number of revealing documentaries about the Republic that will remain freely available and remarkably a new spy drama shot and produced in the region during the current global pandemic .
Without revealing too much as the film is pre-release , Alpha R references many of the dynamics that act upon the situation on the Republic and within the “ new Cold-War ” created by those Western powers and interests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the EU .
( An interesting reference for those who accept the western stance that Marconi was the only inventor of radio and Baird invented TV : Russian pioneer of TV technology , Zworykin , mentioned in the Republic ’ s announcement , demonstrated his TV system in 1911 , Baird in 1926 ) .
A new doctrine allowing the free use of films , music , computer games and software from countries that have not recognised the Donetsk People ’ s Republic enters into force today .
Russia , a friendly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this doctrine as a country that has “ de facto recognised ” the Republic and is currently in the process of searching a “ de jure ” solution .
As for the products of the world ’ s film and TV industry , any resident of the Republic will be able to freely download and watch any films and TV series .
Hollywood was created by people from Russia , and television was invented by the Russians Zworykin and Rosing .
Paying homage to these Russian pioneers of the film and television industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to enjoy the best films , music and other cultural and entertainment products absolutely free of charge .
This doctrine of free use does not therefore include products from countries that have recognised the Donetsk People ’ s Republic , in addition only products created in such a country after the recognition decision will fall under the exception ( until full international recognition of the Republic ) .
This exception will also apply to films created on the territory of the Republic such as “ Alpha R ” , a spy thriller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Donetsk , production was undertaken during the global pandemic .
In order to avoid legal incidents , “ pirated ” products will only be considered products that are actually about pirates : “ Pirates of the Caribbean ” , “ Pirates of the 20th century ” , “ Treasure Island ” , etc .
Enjoy your free viewing , the unprecedented freedom of access to the treasures of the world ’ s film industry , available only on the territory of the Donetsk People ’ s Republic !

Rhys Jones
As reported by other contributors to Off-G, Donetsk is daily shelled and fired upon by troops from Ukraine territory.
Residents are injured and killed by these unprovoked attacks, homes are damaged and destroyed, yet the official reports of these ceasefire violations published by the international monitoring mission from the EU’s OCSE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) are, perhaps unsurprisingly, totally ignored and unreported by western MSM.
Continuing to defend itself, rather than being provoked into similar violent attacks the People’s Republic take a more pragmatic and intelligent stance. The Donetsk News Agency publish recorded violations daily ensuring that the facts continue to be made available.
Not without wit and a sense of irony, the Republic’s leadership have today published a new law, a doctrine of freedom that allows any resident of the Republic to freely download films, texts and software from any country that does not officially recognise the Republic.
A new unique kind of weapon, delivered with tongue firmly in cheek, yet real enough.
There are some other exceptions, see the full translated text of the official announcement below for the detail, including that films produced in the Republic are not free for download and viewing.
There are a number of revealing documentaries about the Republic that will remain freely available and remarkably a new spy drama shot and produced in the region during the current global pandemic.
Without revealing too much as the film is pre-release, Alpha R references many of the dynamics that act upon the situation on the Republic and within the “new Cold-War” created by those Western powers and interests that feed this forgotten conflict on the borders of the EU.
(An interesting reference for those who accept the western stance that Marconi was the only inventor of radio and Baird invented TV: Russian pioneer of TV technology, Zworykin, mentioned in the Republic’s announcement, demonstrated his TV system in 1911, Baird in 1926).
Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Stills from “Alpha R”, a spy thriller being filmed in the Donetsk People’s Republic amidst the global pandemic. The film is based on a true story and is a sequel to the Soviet spy classic “TASS is Authorized to Declare” Prev 1 of 9 Next
Official announcement text:
A new doctrine allowing the free use of films, music, computer games and software from countries that have not recognised the Donetsk People’s Republic enters into force today. Russia, a friendly country, receives a special status under this doctrine as a country that has “de facto recognised” the Republic and is currently in the process of searching a “de jure” solution. As for the products of the world’s film and TV industry, any resident of the Republic will be able to freely download and watch any films and TV series. Hollywood was created by people from Russia, and television was invented by the Russians Zworykin and Rosing. Paying homage to these Russian pioneers of the film and television industry, viewers of the Republic will be able to enjoy the best films, music and other cultural and entertainment products absolutely free of charge. This doctrine of free use does not therefore include products from countries that have recognised the Donetsk People’s Republic, in addition only products created in such a country after the recognition decision will fall under the exception (until full international recognition of the Republic). This exception will also apply to films created on the territory of the Republic such as “Alpha R”, a spy thriller that will be the first blockbuster filmed in Donetsk, production was undertaken during the global pandemic. In order to avoid legal incidents, “pirated” products will only be considered products that are actually about pirates: “Pirates of the Caribbean”, “Pirates of the 20th century”, “Treasure Island”, etc. Enjoy your free viewing, the unprecedented freedom of access to the treasures of the world’s film industry, available only on the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic!


offguardian--2020-05-01--WATCH: How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health

This question , once merely academic , is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize @ @ @ @ @ has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health @ @ @ @ @ development .
And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has @ @ @ @ @ , we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going @ @ @ @ @ control over the fates of billions of people .

Who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert?
This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development.
And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.