21stcenturywire--2020-05-08--COVID 19: UK Mired in Statistical Nonsense

The mortality statistics for COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media ( MSM ) .
Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown ( house arrest ) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19 syndrome is the only sensible reaction .
Apparently , only the most lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us .
The COVID 19 mortality statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing ( State surveillance ) apps .
This will help the vaccinated to secure their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and enable them to prove they are allowed to exist in the post COVID 19 society , whenever the State demands to see their authorisation .
But how reliable are these statistics ?
What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the confines of our incarceration ?
Do they reveal the harsh reality of an unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they have been manipulated , inflated , fudged and exploited tell us something else ?
The Once Reliable Office Of National Statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( another qualified doctor ) was introduced in 2016 following a series of high profile systemic abuses .
The mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman , and doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Trust , covered up crimes and widespread malpractice by improperly completing MCCD ’ s .
Today , once the Medical Examiner agrees , they then discusses the death with a qualified informant .
This is usually someone who knows the deceased .
It is an opportunity , more often than not , for a family member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the suggested cause of death .
If no further issues are raised , the death certificate can be issued to the informant , the Local Registrar notified and the death recorded .
Registered deaths have been recorded in England and Wales since 1837 .
From 1911 onward the cause of death has been coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) .
Maintaining registration records was the responsibility of the General Register Office until 1970 when it became a department of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merged with the Central Statistical Office ( CSO ) to form the Office of National Statistics ( ONS ) .
There have been some tweaks and legislative changes to the system over the years .
Technology has sped things up a bit , but essentially the simple process of recording registered deaths has changed little over the last century .
The ONS have been accurately recording registered deaths in England and Wales for more than 23 years .
From a statistical perspective this consistent , verifiable system has allowed meaningful analysis to inform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The inbuilt safeguards , maintained and improved over the years , means the ONS provide some of the most reliable mortality statistics in the world .
They record all registered deaths no matter where they occurred in England and Wales .
Whether the deceased died in hospital , a care home or in the community , once registration is complete the ONS add it to their statistics .
For weekly statistics the ONS week runs from Saturday to Friday and the statistics are released 11 days after the week ending date .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a small number of more complex cases .
However , all are eventually resolved and the ONS record the registration of the death in the week it was notified .
The ONS also release mortality statistics on a monthly , quarterly and annual basis for comparison .
This does not suit a hungry MSM eager to sensationalise reported COVID 19 deaths .
Nor does it serve the immediate interests of State officials who want the public to accept their own house arrest .
Consequently the MSM have reported COVID 19 mortality statistics from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NHS , some from the Department of Health and Social Care ( DHSC ) and eventually the ONS .
Now the Care Quality Commission have also been thrown into the mix .
Ultimately , all of these deaths will be registered .
The ONS will record them and it will be possible to know how many died , the causes of death and the trends identified .
Except in the case of COVID 19 .
The Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal assent on March 25th .
This had significant implications for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ONS data in relation to COVID 19 .
Not only did the act indemnify all NHS doctors against any claims of negligence during the lockdown , it also removed the need for a jury led inquest .
Effectively , only in the case of death from the notifiable disease of COVID 19 .
Worrying as these elements of the legislation are , they are just part of a raft of changes singling out registered COVID 19 deaths as unusually imprecise .
The NHS issued guidance to assist doctors to comply with the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MCCD .
There is no need for the scrutiny of a second Medical Examiner .
The Medical Examiner , or any other doctor , can sign the MCCD alone .
The safeguards introduced in 2016 were removed , but only in the case of COVID 19 .
Doctors do not necessarily need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD .
If it is considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the MCCD , providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19 , any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certificate as a COVID 19 death .
There is no requirement for any signing doctor to have even seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD .
A video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient ’ s death , is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19 .
If that were not tenuous enough , as longs as the signing doctor believes the death was from COVID 19 , potentially absent any examination at all , perhaps simply by reviewing the patients case notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID 19 death can still be registered .
The coroner ’ s agreement is practically a fait accomplis .
On the 26th March the UK State released guidance from the Chief Coroner .
This was intended as advice to all coroners in cases of COVID 19 referral .
There were some notable changes to normal coronal procedures .
Paragraph 5 strongly reminded coroners of their obligation to maintain judicial conduct .
It stated : “ The Chief Coroner can not envisage a situation in the current pandemic where a coroner should be engaging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any public statements to the press.
” This thinly veiled threat to coroners made it clear that speaking out about any concerns would be considered a breech of judicial conduct .
A career ending act it would seem .
The NHS guidance advised that if no signing doctor has seen the deceased prior to registration of death , a referral to the coroner must be made .
This is a procedural recommendation not a legal requirement .
A legal requirement is only applicable in cases of unknown or suspicious causes of death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s guidance states : “ COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death……The aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD process.
” The Coronavirus Act 2020 also meant that a qualified informant , who agrees the cause of death on the MCCD , no longer needed to be anyone acquainted with the deceased .
A hospital official , someone who is ‘ in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funeral director can perform this vital function .
The Chief Coroner advised : “ For registration : where next of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures , the arrangement for relatives ( etc ) should be for an alternative informant who has not been in contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for registration purposes .
The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.
” Most relatives , or someone acquainted with the deceased , will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost certainly be terrified of contracting COVID 19 because they have just been told their loved one or friend died from it .
Furthermore , the Coronavirus Act has effectively placed them under house arrest .
In other words , if the MCCD signing doctor hasn ’ t seen the patient , while they were alive , no further inquiry is necessary .
The qualified informant can be someone who has neither met the deceased nor knows anything about the circumstances surrounding their death .
In this situation , but only for COVID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume the death was from the disease .
If you , the coroner , don ’ t like the idea , don ’ t make a fuss .
Just sign the damn thing or else .
This quite bizarre death registration process compelled the ONS to issue guidance to doctors signing MCCD ’ s .
Not only is there no need for an examination to pronounce death from COVID 19 , nor is there any necessity for a positive test or even an indicative CT scan .
In their guidance the ONS advised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause of death .
When mortality statistics are used for research it is usually the most relevant factor .
The vast majority of COVID 19 deaths reported by the State and the MSM also reflect its identification as the underlying cause .
The World Health Organisation ( WHO ) define this as : “ The disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.
” For COVID 19 , this determination can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has never met the deceased .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ video link consultation or a case note review of symptoms .
The problem is the symptoms of COVID 19 are largely indistinguishable from a range of other respiratory illnesses .
A study from the University of Toronto found : “ The symptoms can vary , with some patients remaining asymptomatic , while others present with fever , cough , fatigue , and a host of other symptoms .
The symptoms may be similar to patients with influenza or the common cold.
” Nor is there any requirement for a post mortem to confirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Royal College of Pathologists states : “ If a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection , there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.
” Clear causation between the underlying cause and the direct cause is imperative to establish the fact .
Just because someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 ( SC2 ) virus it doesn ’ t mean they developed the associated syndrome of COVID 19 .
The Oxford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything between 5 % – 80 % of people who tested positive for SC2 did not have any symptoms of COVID 19 .
Asymptomatic people do not have a disease which impacts their health in the short term .
Even for those who did test positive for SC2 , claims that this was the underlying cause of death are dubious in an unknown number of cases .
Following the Coronavirus Act , in keeping with advice from the NHS , the ONS advised doctors : “ If before death the patient had symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the test result has not been received , it would be satisfactory to give ‘ COVID-19 ’ as the cause of death….In the circumstances of there being no swab , it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.
” This isn ’ t unique to COVID 19 .
Doctors are required to complete MCCD ’ s “ to the best of their knowledge and belief ” even when test results may not yet be available .
The difference in the case of COVID 19 is that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory opinions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death have been removed .
In addition , the need to complete Cremation form 5 , requiring a second medical opinion , has been suspended for all COVID 19 deaths .
Given that post mortem confirmation is also extremely unlikely and agreement from a coroner is all but assured , this means possible COVID 19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence they ever had the disease .
In light of all the other registration oddities for determining COVID 19 mortality , the direct causation , proving COVID 19 was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubtful .
We just don ’ t know how many people have died from COVID 19 .
We are told many people have , but we can not state with any certainty what the numbers are .
Neither can the ONS .
Obviously concerned about the implications , the Royal College of Pathologists ( RCPath ) have called for a systemic post outbreak review .
The Health Service Journal reports that the RCPath expects a detailed investigation into causes of death due to the degree of uncertainty .
The overwhelming majority of medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ONS statisticians and funeral directors have no desire to mislead anyone .
However , in the case of COVID 19 deaths , the State has created a registration system so ambiguous it is virtually useless .
The statistical product recorded by the ONS , despite their best efforts , is correspondingly vacuous .
This hasn ’ t stopped the State and the MSM from reporting every death as proof of the deadliness of COVID 19 .
Claims of COVID 19 as the underlying cause of death should be treated with considerable scepticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon the figures of COVID 19 deaths released by the NHS via the DHSC .
These were the numbers with positive test results .
The ONS also recorded positive test registrations from the NHS , care settings and the community .
As discussed , a positive test for SC2 doesn ’ t necessarily mean you suffered any health impact from COVID 19 .
In addition , the test itself has proved to have a varying degree of reliability .
Nonetheless , the ONS figures from all settings , were higher than those reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their daily briefings .
However , the reliance upon positive tests changed on March 29th .
The State instructed the ONS not only to record all registered COVID 19 deaths , where positive tests results were known , but also where COVID 19 was merely suspected .
In combination with the possibly spurious attribution from hospitals , this ‘ mention ’ of COVID 19 , further distanced the statistics from clear , confirmed causes of death .
This prompted a significant increase in the COVID 19 fatalities reported by the ONS .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but because the categorisation of COVID 19 deaths had changed .
Any mention of COVID 19 anywhere on the death certificate , regardless of other comorbidities , such as heart failure or cancer , were now recorded as registered COVID 19 deaths by the ONS .
This addition of claimed COVID 19 deaths has punctuated the ONS data throughout the outbreak .
While we are told by the MSM that these new figures better reflect the reality of COVID 19 mortality , in truth we are moving further away from any meaningful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been altered at opportune moments to inflate and maintain the mortality statistics .
Just after the virus peak of infection and the start of the lockdown , the State instructed the ONS to include suspected “ mentions ” of COVID 19 .
Again , as the recorded numbers of deaths were dropping , the State started releasing more figures from the care sector .
From April 29th they have introduced additional figures provided by the Care Quality Commission ( CQC ) .
If the figures from the NHS are at best questionable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk of moving us into fantasy land .
All the same problems of decedents not being seen , video consultations , lack of corroborative medical opinion and so forth remain .
However , in care settings the onus for signing MCCD ’ s shifts from hospital doctors to General Practitioners ( GP ’ s ) .
The CQC is the independent regulator of health and social care in England .
During the COVID 19 outbreak it has not required care homes or community care providers to notify them of suspected cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the 29th April the CQC will provide statistics to the ONS where a “ care home provider has stated COVID-19 as a suspected or confirmed cause of death.
” This notification is made online via the CQC ’ s Provider Portal .
Provisional figures will be included in the ONS daily updates .
The CQC is tasked with making sure decedents from care homes who died in hospital are removed from the reports before submitting them to the ONS .
Otherwise massive duplication will occur .
We can only hope statisticians will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported what these statistics from the CQC will be based upon .
Frankly , it makes jaw dropping reading .
The ONS state : “ The inclusion of a death in the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement of the care home provider , which may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result , or be reflected in the death certification.
” Most care home providers are not medically trained .
Their judgement regarding whether or not the decedent had COVID 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once weekly phone call with a GP .
Guidance to GP ’ s from NHS England states that Possible COVID 19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online .
This is in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice , in relation to COVID 19 , which states : “ Remote consultations should be used when possible .
Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.
” “ There is no validation built into the quality of data on collection .
Fields may be left blank or may contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not be resolved at the point of publication .
Most pertinent to this release are place of death and whether the death was as a result of confirmed or suspected coronavirus.
” This is the system the CQC will use to collect the data for the ONS reports .
Once someone , either in a care home or cared for in the community , is assumed to have died of COVID 19 , based upon the best guess of the care provider following a chat with a local GP , in keeping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their MCCD will be signed off as a COVID 19 death .
The ONS will add their death to the COVID 19 statistics and the State and the MSM will report them to the public as confirmed COVID 19 mortality .
How anyone can consider the statistics from care providers an accurate and reliable record of COVID 19 deaths is difficult to envisage .
Nonetheless , that is what we are asked to believe .
All we are able to identify with any certainty are the total number of of all deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the ONS .
We can not be confident about what caused those deaths during the COVID 19 outbreak .
The State has presided over a truly remarkable bastardisation of the ONS data for COVID 19 .
This has not only rendered records of COVID 19 deaths a statistical black hole but , during the claimed pandemic , has also made the ONS data for other causes of excess mortality practically unknowable .
Especially for the ONS , any chance of accurately separating COVID 19 deaths from other causes of mortality has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time in their history the ONS are reporting a relatively large number of highly dubious registered causes of death .
However , they remain our best hope of knowing how many people have passed away .
In the meantime , while we wait for the ONS data to emerge , the MSM are reporting every COVID 19 death from any source they can find .
Some are vaguely confirmed and some not .
They are also reporting suspected COVID 19 deaths from care homes , provisional figures from the NHS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again from the DHSC and later the ONS .
The narrative they are presenting , on the back of this hodgepodge of statistical irrelevance , is designed to convince the public of the severity of the outbreak in the UK .
There is clearly high excess mortality at the moment .
Thanks to the lockdown , this is happening while the NHS is essentially closed to everyone other than suspected COVID 19 patients .
Early studies have already predicted a significant health impact from the lack of essential health care caused by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range of other potentially fatal conditions aren ’ t getting it .
This was acknowledged by the UK ’ s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty in the daily briefing on April 30th : “ …You have the direct deaths from coronavirus but also indirect deaths .
Part of which is caused by the NHS and public health services not being able to do what they normally can to look after people with other conditions….It is therefore important…..to do the other important things like urgent cancer care , elective surgery and all the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep people healthy.
” We just don ’ t know and the ONS have no way of finding out .
However we do know , thanks to the ONS , the total all cause mortality as a percentage of population in England and Wales over recent decades .
This analysis shows us , while excess mortality this year is high , it is by no means unprecedented .
In fact , as a percentage of population , it is notably lower to the comparable years of 1995 , 1996 , 1998 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessitated the shut down of the economy nor the dire health consequences of closing the NHS to all but a few patients .
Between 27th March and 17th April ( ONS weeks 14,15 & 16 ) the ONS registered 25,932 additional deaths above the statistical recent 5 year norm .
Of these 11,427 recorded COVID 19 as the sole mentioned underlying cause .
We have just explored the considerable doubt about this attribution .
However , if we accept this figure , it means the remaining 14,505 people died with other registered underlying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of additional excess mortality is attributable to something else , either in addition to or entirely separate from suggested COVID 19 .
Given this inexplicable Spring mortality it seems highly likely these are at least some of the indirect deaths the UK ’ s Chief Medical Officer spoke of .
To claim all these excess deaths are the result of COVID 19 , as the State and MSM persistently do , is without any justification whatsoever .
It is not possible to identify how many people have died as a direct result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths or the resultant statistics .
This is not the fault of medical practitioners or statisticians .
It is caused by a State response to a claimed pandemic which has rendered the most crucial processes , and the data gleaned from them , a statistical nonsense .
*** Author Iain Davis is an independent researcher and short filmmaker and the author of the new book , A Dangerous Ideology .
See more of Iain ’ s work at his blog site In This Together and follow him at Twitter & Steemit & MINDS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ films and videos on YouTube , DTube and BitChute .
An original version of the article was previously published at In This Together .
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV

By
Iain Davis
21st Century Wire
The mortality statistics for COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media (MSM). Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown (house arrest) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19 syndrome is the only sensible reaction. Apparently, only the most lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us.
The COVID 19 mortality statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing (State surveillance) apps. This will help the vaccinated to secure their very own immunity passports (identity papers) and enable them to prove they are allowed to exist in the post COVID 19 society, whenever the State demands to see their authorisation.
But how reliable are these statistics? What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the confines of our incarceration? Do they reveal the harsh reality of an unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they have been manipulated, inflated, fudged and exploited tell us something else?
The Once Reliable Office Of National Statistics
The second opinion of the Medical Examiner (another qualified doctor) was introduced in 2016 following a series of high profile systemic abuses. The mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman, and doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS Trust, covered up crimes and widespread malpractice by improperly completing MCCD’s.
Today, once the Medical Examiner agrees, they then discusses the death with a qualified informant. This is usually someone who knows the deceased. It is an opportunity, more often than not, for a family member or friend to discuss any concerns about the suggested cause of death. If no further issues are raised, the death certificate can be issued to the informant, the Local Registrar notified and the death recorded.
Registered deaths have been recorded in England and Wales since 1837. From 1911 onward the cause of death has been coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Maintaining registration records was the responsibility of the General Register Office until 1970 when it became a department of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). In 1996 the OPCS merged with the Central Statistical Office (CSO) to form the Office of National Statistics (ONS).
There have been some tweaks and legislative changes to the system over the years. Technology has sped things up a bit, but essentially the simple process of recording registered deaths has changed little over the last century. The ONS have been accurately recording registered deaths in England and Wales for more than 23 years.
From a statistical perspective this consistent, verifiable system has allowed meaningful analysis to inform public health practice and policy for decades. The inbuilt safeguards, maintained and improved over the years, means the ONS provide some of the most reliable mortality statistics in the world.
They record all registered deaths no matter where they occurred in England and Wales. Whether the deceased died in hospital, a care home or in the community, once registration is complete the ONS add it to their statistics.
For weekly statistics the ONS week runs from Saturday to Friday and the statistics are released 11 days after the week ending date. There may be an additional lag for a small number of more complex cases. However, all are eventually resolved and the ONS record the registration of the death in the week it was notified. The ONS also release mortality statistics on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for comparison.
This does not suit a hungry MSM eager to sensationalise reported COVID 19 deaths. Nor does it serve the immediate interests of State officials who want the public to accept their own house arrest.
Consequently the MSM have reported COVID 19 mortality statistics from a variety of sources. Some from the NHS, some from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and eventually the ONS. Now the Care Quality Commission have also been thrown into the mix.
Ultimately, all of these deaths will be registered. The ONS will record them and it will be possible to know how many died, the causes of death and the trends identified.
Except in the case of COVID 19.
The Vague Case Of A COVID 19 Death
The Coronavirus Act 2020 received Royal assent on March 25th. This had significant implications for the registration of deaths and the accuracy of ONS data in relation to COVID 19.
Not only did the act indemnify all NHS doctors against any claims of negligence during the lockdown, it also removed the need for a jury led inquest. Effectively, only in the case of death from the notifiable disease of COVID 19. Worrying as these elements of the legislation are, they are just part of a raft of changes singling out registered COVID 19 deaths as unusually imprecise.
The NHS issued guidance to assist doctors to comply with the new legislation. Any doctor can sign the MCCD. There is no need for the scrutiny of a second Medical Examiner. The Medical Examiner, or any other doctor, can sign the MCCD alone. The safeguards introduced in 2016 were removed, but only in the case of COVID 19.
Doctors do not necessarily need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD. If it is considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the MCCD, providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19, any other qualified doctor can sign the death certificate as a COVID 19 death.
There is no requirement for any signing doctor to have even seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD. A video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient’s death, is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19.
If that were not tenuous enough, as longs as the signing doctor believes the death was from COVID 19, potentially absent any examination at all, perhaps simply by reviewing the patients case notes, if a coroner agrees, a COVID 19 death can still be registered.
The coroner’s agreement is practically a fait accomplis. On the 26th March the UK State released guidance from the Chief Coroner. This was intended as advice to all coroners in cases of COVID 19 referral.
There were some notable changes to normal coronal procedures. Paragraph 5 strongly reminded coroners of their obligation to maintain judicial conduct. It stated:
“The Chief Coroner cannot envisage a situation in the current pandemic where a coroner should be engaging in interviews with the media or making any public statements to the press.”
This thinly veiled threat to coroners made it clear that speaking out about any concerns would be considered a breech of judicial conduct. A career ending act it would seem.
The NHS guidance advised that if no signing doctor has seen the deceased prior to registration of death, a referral to the coroner must be made. This is a procedural recommendation not a legal requirement. A legal requirement is only applicable in cases of unknown or suspicious causes of death. In turn, the Chief Coroner’s guidance states:
“COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death……The aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD process.”
The Coronavirus Act 2020 also meant that a qualified informant, who agrees the cause of death on the MCCD, no longer needed to be anyone acquainted with the deceased. A hospital official, someone who is ‘in charge of a body’ or a funeral director can perform this vital function. The Chief Coroner advised:
“For registration: where next of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures, the arrangement for relatives (etc) should be for an alternative informant who has not been in contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for registration purposes. The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.”
Most relatives, or someone acquainted with the deceased, will be following self isolation procedures. They will almost certainly be terrified of contracting COVID 19 because they have just been told their loved one or friend died from it. Furthermore, the Coronavirus Act has effectively placed them under house arrest.
In other words, if the MCCD signing doctor hasn’t seen the patient, while they were alive, no further inquiry is necessary. The qualified informant can be someone who has neither met the deceased nor knows anything about the circumstances surrounding their death.
In this situation, but only for COVID 19 deaths, it is fine to assume the death was from the disease. If you, the coroner, don’t like the idea, don’t make a fuss. Just sign the damn thing or else.
Impacting The COVID 19 Statistics
This quite bizarre death registration process compelled the ONS to issue guidance to doctors signing MCCD’s. Not only is there no need for an examination to pronounce death from COVID 19, nor is there any necessity for a positive test or even an indicative CT scan.
In their guidance the ONS advised doctors on what constitutes an acceptable underlying cause of death. When mortality statistics are used for research it is usually the most relevant factor. The vast majority of COVID 19 deaths reported by the State and the MSM also reflect its identification as the underlying cause.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) define this as:
“The disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.”
For COVID 19, this determination can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has never met the deceased. Quite possibly following nothing more than a video link consultation or a case note review of symptoms.
The problem is the symptoms of COVID 19 are largely indistinguishable from a range of other respiratory illnesses. A study from the University of Toronto found:
“The symptoms can vary, with some patients remaining asymptomatic, while others present with fever, cough, fatigue, and a host of other symptoms. The symptoms may be similar to patients with influenza or the common cold.”
Nor is there any requirement for a post mortem to confirm the presence of COVID 19. Guidance from the Royal College of Pathologists states:
“If a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.”
Clear causation between the underlying cause and the direct cause is imperative to establish the fact. Just because someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 (SC2) virus it doesn’t mean they developed the associated syndrome of COVID 19.
The Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine found that anything between 5% – 80% of people who tested positive for SC2 did not have any symptoms of COVID 19. Asymptomatic people do not have a disease which impacts their health in the short term. Even for those who did test positive for SC2, claims that this was the underlying cause of death are dubious in an unknown number of cases.
Following the Coronavirus Act, in keeping with advice from the NHS, the ONS advised doctors:
“If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID 19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death….In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.”
This isn’t unique to COVID 19. Doctors are required to complete MCCD’s “to the best of their knowledge and belief” even when test results may not yet be available. The difference in the case of COVID 19 is that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory opinions and every opportunity to question the cause of death have been removed.
In addition, the need to complete Cremation form 5, requiring a second medical opinion, has been suspended for all COVID 19 deaths. Given that post mortem confirmation is also extremely unlikely and agreement from a coroner is all but assured, this means possible COVID 19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence they ever had the disease.
In light of all the other registration oddities for determining COVID 19 mortality, the direct causation, proving COVID 19 was the underlying cause of death, appears extremely doubtful. We just don’t know how many people have died from COVID 19. We are told many people have, but we cannot state with any certainty what the numbers are. Neither can the ONS.
Obviously concerned about the implications, the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) have called for a systemic post outbreak review. The Health Service Journal reports that the RCPath expects a detailed investigation into causes of death due to the degree of uncertainty.
Statistically It Get’s Worse
The overwhelming majority of medical and care staff, coroners, pathologists, ONS statisticians and funeral directors have no desire to mislead anyone. However, in the case of COVID 19 deaths, the State has created a registration system so ambiguous it is virtually useless. The statistical product recorded by the ONS, despite their best efforts, is correspondingly vacuous.
This hasn’t stopped the State and the MSM from reporting every death as proof of the deadliness of COVID 19. Claims of COVID 19 as the underlying cause of death should be treated with considerable scepticism.
Initially the daily reports were based upon the figures of COVID 19 deaths released by the NHS via the DHSC. These were the numbers with positive test results. The ONS also recorded positive test registrations from the NHS, care settings and the community.
As discussed, a positive test for SC2 doesn’t necessarily mean you suffered any health impact from COVID 19. In addition, the test itself has proved to have a varying degree of reliability.
Nonetheless, the ONS figures from all settings, were higher than those reported by the MSM and the State in their daily briefings. However, the reliance upon positive tests changed on March 29th.
The State instructed the ONS not only to record all registered COVID 19 deaths, where positive tests results were known, but also where COVID 19 was merely suspected. In combination with the possibly spurious attribution from hospitals, this ‘mention’ of COVID 19, further distanced the statistics from clear, confirmed causes of death.
This prompted a significant increase in the COVID 19 fatalities reported by the ONS. Not because more people were dying from it, but because the categorisation of COVID 19 deaths had changed. Any mention of COVID 19 anywhere on the death certificate, regardless of other comorbidities, such as heart failure or cancer, were now recorded as registered COVID 19 deaths by the ONS.
This addition of claimed COVID 19 deaths has punctuated the ONS data throughout the outbreak. While we are told by the MSM that these new figures better reflect the reality of COVID 19 mortality, in truth we are moving further away from any meaningful record.
The evidence suggests the methodology has been altered at opportune moments to inflate and maintain the mortality statistics. Just after the virus peak of infection and the start of the lockdown, the State instructed the ONS to include suspected “mentions” of COVID 19. Again, as the recorded numbers of deaths were dropping, the State started releasing more figures from the care sector. From April 29th they have introduced additional figures provided by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
If the figures from the NHS are at best questionable, the figures from the CQC run the risk of moving us into fantasy land. All the same problems of decedents not being seen, video consultations, lack of corroborative medical opinion and so forth remain. However, in care settings the onus for signing MCCD’s shifts from hospital doctors to General Practitioners (GP’s).
The CQC is the independent regulator of health and social care in England. During the COVID 19 outbreak it has not required care homes or community care providers to notify them of suspected cases. It has also suspended all inspections.
From the 29th April the CQC will provide statistics to the ONS where a “care home provider has stated COVID-19 as a suspected or confirmed cause of death.” This notification is made online via the CQC’s Provider Portal. Provisional figures will be included in the ONS daily updates.
The CQC is tasked with making sure decedents from care homes who died in hospital are removed from the reports before submitting them to the ONS. Otherwise massive duplication will occur. We can only hope statisticians will be extremely diligent.
The ONS has reported what these statistics from the CQC will be based upon. Frankly, it makes jaw dropping reading. The ONS state:
“The inclusion of a death in the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement of the care home provider, which may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result, or be reflected in the death certification.”
Most care home providers are not medically trained. Their judgement regarding whether or not the decedent had COVID 19 may well be the result of a once weekly phone call with a GP. Guidance to GP’s from NHS England states that Possible COVID 19 patients should be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online.
This is in keeping with the NHS Key Principles of General Practice, in relation to COVID 19, which states:
“Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.”
The ONS add:
“There is no validation built into the quality of data on collection. Fields may be left blank or may contain information that is contradictory, and this may not be resolved at the point of publication. Most pertinent to this release are place of death and whether the death was as a result of confirmed or suspected coronavirus.”
This is the system the CQC will use to collect the data for the ONS reports. Once someone, either in a care home or cared for in the community, is assumed to have died of COVID 19, based upon the best guess of the care provider following a chat with a local GP, in keeping with the process we have already discussed, their MCCD will be signed off as a COVID 19 death. The ONS will add their death to the COVID 19 statistics and the State and the MSM will report them to the public as confirmed COVID 19 mortality.
How anyone can consider the statistics from care providers an accurate and reliable record of COVID 19 deaths is difficult to envisage. Nonetheless, that is what we are asked to believe.
The State And MSM COVID 19 Fudge
All we are able to identify with any certainty are the total number of of all deaths, called all cause mortality, reported by the ONS. We cannot be confident about what caused those deaths during the COVID 19 outbreak.
The State has presided over a truly remarkable bastardisation of the ONS data for COVID 19. This has not only rendered records of COVID 19 deaths a statistical black hole but, during the claimed pandemic, has also made the ONS data for other causes of excess mortality practically unknowable.
Especially for the ONS, any chance of accurately separating COVID 19 deaths from other causes of mortality has been completely obliterated by State diktat. For the first time in their history the ONS are reporting a relatively large number of highly dubious registered causes of death. However, they remain our best hope of knowing how many people have passed away.
In the meantime, while we wait for the ONS data to emerge, the MSM are reporting every COVID 19 death from any source they can find. Some are vaguely confirmed and some not. They are also reporting suspected COVID 19 deaths from care homes, provisional figures from the NHS , the CQC and then the same figures again from the DHSC and later the ONS.
The narrative they are presenting, on the back of this hodgepodge of statistical irrelevance, is designed to convince the public of the severity of the outbreak in the UK. There is clearly high excess mortality at the moment. Thanks to the lockdown, this is happening while the NHS is essentially closed to everyone other than suspected COVID 19 patients.
Early studies have already predicted a significant health impact from the lack of essential health care caused by the lockdown. People requiring treatment for a range of other potentially fatal conditions aren’t getting it. This was acknowledged by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty in the daily briefing on April 30th:
“…You have the direct deaths from coronavirus but also indirect deaths. Part of which is caused by the NHS and public health services not being able to do what they normally can to look after people with other conditions….It is therefore important…..to do the other important things like urgent cancer care, elective surgery and all the other thing like screening….which we need to do to keep people healthy.”
We just don’t know and the ONS have no way of finding out.
However we do know, thanks to the ONS, the total all cause mortality as a percentage of population in England and Wales over recent decades. This analysis shows us, while excess mortality this year is high, it is by no means unprecedented. In fact, as a percentage of population, it is notably lower to the comparable years of 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999. Yet none of these years necessitated the shut down of the economy nor the dire health consequences of closing the NHS to all but a few patients.
Between 27th March and 17th April (ONS weeks 14,15 & 16) the ONS registered 25,932 additional deaths above the statistical recent 5 year norm. Of these 11,427 recorded COVID 19 as the sole mentioned underlying cause.
We have just explored the considerable doubt about this attribution. However, if we accept this figure, it means the remaining 14,505 people died with other registered underlying causes. That means approximately 56% of additional excess mortality is attributable to something else, either in addition to or entirely separate from suggested COVID 19.
Given this inexplicable Spring mortality it seems highly likely these are at least some of the indirect deaths the UK’s Chief Medical Officer spoke of. To claim all these excess deaths are the result of COVID 19, as the State and MSM persistently do, is without any justification whatsoever.
It is not possible to identify how many people have died as a direct result of COVID 19 either from the registration of deaths or the resultant statistics. This is not the fault of medical practitioners or statisticians. It is caused by a State response to a claimed pandemic which has rendered the most crucial processes, and the data gleaned from them, a statistical nonsense.
***
Author Iain Davis is an independent researcher and short filmmaker and the author of the new book, A Dangerous Ideology. See more of Iain’s work at his blog site In This Together and follow him at Twitter & Steemit & MINDS. Also you can watch his short films and videos on YouTube, DTube and BitChute. An original version of the article was previously published at In This Together.
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-10--SUNDAY SCREENING: ‘Have Fun in Pyongyang’ (2020)

Our weekly documentary film curated by the editorial team at 21WIRE .
“ Perhaps no other country in the world is as mysterious as North Korea .
In the West , it ’ s known as the last Stalinist dictatorship , the land of dictator Kim Jong Un , bombastic military parades and nuclear missile tests .
And it is actually quite difficult to look beyond the political and examine the daily life of 25 million North Koreans .
Are they allowed to laugh , dance and marry ?
What do they eat ?
Where do they go on holiday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer given the isolation of the population from the rest of the world .
The filmmakers behind Have Fun in Pyongyang visited people who have lived in the isolated mountainous nation for three generations .
Over eight years , they visited North Korea forty times to attend festivals and harvest ceremonies , visit factories and listen to singing contests , in the process catching surprising , fascinating and bizarre glimpses of everyday life in North Korea .
The documentary gives us an insight into North Korean life and helps us understand how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the Cold War , the famine of the 1990s that cost hundreds of thousands their lives , and the never-ending diplomatic and military conflicts.
” Watch : SEE MORE SUNDAY SCREENINGS HERE

By
Our weekly documentary film curated by the editorial team at 21WIRE.
“Perhaps no other country in the world is as mysterious as North Korea. In the West, it’s known as the last Stalinist dictatorship, the land of dictator Kim Jong Un, bombastic military parades and nuclear missile tests. And it is actually quite difficult to look beyond the political and examine the daily life of 25 million North Koreans. Are they allowed to laugh, dance and marry? What do they eat? Where do they go on holiday? These simple questions are difficult to answer given the isolation of the population from the rest of the world. The filmmakers behind Have Fun in Pyongyang visited people who have lived in the isolated mountainous nation for three generations. Over eight years, they visited North Korea forty times to attend festivals and harvest ceremonies, visit factories and listen to singing contests, in the process catching surprising, fascinating and bizarre glimpses of everyday life in North Korea. The documentary gives us an insight into North Korean life and helps us understand how the impoverished, isolated country has survived the end of the Cold War, the famine of the 1990s that cost hundreds of thousands their lives, and the never-ending diplomatic and military conflicts.” Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StjIv33zJ9c
.
Run time: 42 min
Produced by DW Documentaries (2020)
SEE MORE SUNDAY SCREENINGS HERE
READ MORE NORTH KOREA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire North Korea Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-10--Episode #325 – ‘Fear and Loathing in Las Vagueness’ with Patrick Henningsen

Episode # 325 of SUNDAY WIRE SHOW resumes on this week , May 10 , 2020 with host Patrick Henningsen , broadcasting LIVE on the Alternate Current Radio Network ( ACR ) … 5pm-8pm UK Time | 12pm-3pm EST ( US ) | 9am-12pm PST ( US ) This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with host Patrick Henningsen covering the top stories in the US , Europe and internationally .
This week we continue our commentary on the globalists ’ ubiquitous Medieval-style pandemic ‘ lockdown ’ experiment , as governments around the world double-down what is already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epic failures of policy in modern history .
Countries are now being held hostage by ad-hoc Big Government policies being directly influenced by billionaire philanthropists and NGOs .
As the social and economic bill continues to pile up , governments continue to send mixed signals on lifting lockdowns and also how they plan to continue ‘ fighting ’ the Coronavirus COVID-19 respiratory infectious disease .
We ’ ll also revisit the situation in the non-lockdown Sweden to how they got on this past week and why their success story show raise alarms as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likes of US and UK .
All this and much , much more .
Enjoy the show… SUPPORT OUR INDY MEDIA PLATFORM BY DONATING HERE AND ALSO BECOME A TEAM MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV *NOTE : THIS EPISODE MAY CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE AND MATURE THEMES*

By
Episode #325 of SUNDAY WIRE SHOW resumes on this week, May 10, 2020 with host Patrick Henningsen, broadcasting LIVE on the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR)…
LISTEN LIVE ON THIS PAGE – START TIMES:
5pm-8pm UK Time | 12pm-3pm EST (US) | 9am-12pm PST (US)
This week the SUNDAY WIRE broadcasts LIVE on ACR with host Patrick Henningsen covering the top stories in the US, Europe and internationally. This week we continue our commentary on the globalists’ ubiquitous Medieval-style pandemic ‘lockdown’ experiment, as governments around the world double-down what is already being exposed as one of the worst epic failures of policy in modern history. Countries are now being held hostage by ad-hoc Big Government policies being directly influenced by billionaire philanthropists and NGOs. As the social and economic bill continues to pile up, governments continue to send mixed signals on lifting lockdowns and also how they plan to continue ‘fighting’ the Coronavirus COVID-19 respiratory infectious disease. We’ll also revisit the situation in the non-lockdown Sweden to how they got on this past week and why their success story show raise alarms as to the total debacle experienced by the likes of US and UK. All this and much, much more. Enjoy the show…
SUPPORT OUR INDY MEDIA PLATFORM BY DONATING HERE
AND ALSO BECOME A TEAM MEMBER@21WIRE.TV
*NOTE: THIS EPISODE MAY CONTAIN STRONG LANGUAGE AND MATURE THEMES*
Download the most recent Episode #325
Sunday Wire Radio Show Archives


21stcenturywire--2020-05-11--FLASHBACK: When the MMR Autism Controversy Began

Do vaccines cause autism ?
It ’ s a well-known fact that autism rates have risen rapidly over the past 30 years .
For children born in 1992 , according to the CDC , about 1 in 150 would be diagnosed with some form of autism spectrum disorder ( ASD ) .
For children born in 2004 , about 1 in 68 children would be diagnosed with ASD .
Some have claimed that these spikes in this debilitating condition correlates with the an aggressive program of potent vaccinations for young children .
Can this link be proven ?
Both sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformation and fraud , but who is right and who is wrong ?
Back in 2000 is when this controversy began to boil .
Still today , the debate is as hot as ever .
“ It was hailed as a miracle vaccine and it has virtually eradicated measles , mumps and rubella .
It is the triple antigen called MMR [ Measles , Mumps , Rubella ] .
Since its introduction , MMR has protected millions of children from the ravages of those childhood diseases .
But there is a worldwide controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – whether it causes autism in kids .
What we do know is that every year the numbers being diagnosed as autistic are increasing .
Now , one British researcher believes he has found a link to the MMR vaccine .
Tara Brown investigates the claims , which have provoked uproar in the world of medicine.
” The following short documentary episode originally aired on November 12 , 2000 .
Watch :

By
Do vaccines cause autism? It’s a well-known fact that autism rates have risen rapidly over the past 30 years. For children born in 1992, according to the CDC, about 1 in 150 would be diagnosed with some form of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). For children born in 2004, about 1 in 68 children would be diagnosed with ASD. Some have claimed that these spikes in this debilitating condition correlates with the an aggressive program of potent vaccinations for young children.
Can this link be proven? Both sides of this argument accuse the other of misinformation and fraud, but who is right and who is wrong? Back in 2000 is when this controversy began to boil. Still today, the debate is as hot as ever.
60 Minutes Australia reports…
“It was hailed as a miracle vaccine and it has virtually eradicated measles, mumps and rubella. It is the triple antigen called MMR [Measles, Mumps, Rubella]. Since its introduction, MMR has protected millions of children from the ravages of those childhood diseases. But there is a worldwide controversy over a possible and tragic side effect – whether it causes autism in kids. What we do know is that every year the numbers being diagnosed as autistic are increasing. Now, one British researcher believes he has found a link to the MMR vaccine. Tara Brown investigates the claims, which have provoked uproar in the world of medicine.”
The following short documentary episode originally aired on November 12, 2000. Watch:
.
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-11--UKC News: COVID Lockdown ‘Stop Light’ System, Evidence of Gov’t Using MSM for PsyOps

Over the weekend , PM Boris Johnson was meant to reveal the government ’ s plan to supposedly ‘ exit @ @ @ @ @ only what he ended up showing was a ‘ nudging unit ’ masterpiece in government @ @ @ @ @ program of highly weaponised propaganda designed to manipulate the public mind into believing that COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ on April 8th and was somehow laying in wait to ravage the country if ‘ @ @ @ @ @ lifted by Central Government .
UK Column can also revealed a stunning EXCLUSIVE : new @ @ @ @ @ coordinating with mainstream media to pump fear into press reports and headlines in order to @ @ @ @ @ electorate to comply with COVID diktats .
All this and more .
Co-hosts Brian Gerrish @ @ @ @ @ Scott bringing you the latest Coronavirus updates .
Watch : .
SEE MORE UK COLUMN @ @ @ @ @ BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV

By
Over the weekend, PM Boris Johnson was meant to reveal the government’s plan to supposedly ‘exit’ the Coronavirus lockdown, only what he ended up showing was a ‘nudging unit’ masterpiece in government applied behavioural psychology and a program of highly weaponised propaganda designed to manipulate the public mind into believing that COVID-19 hadn’t already peaked on April 8th and was somehow laying in wait to ravage the country if ‘lockdown’ measures were ever lifted by Central Government. UK Column can also revealed a stunning EXCLUSIVE: new evidence that the government is coordinating with mainstream media to pump fear into press reports and headlines in order to alter public behaviour get the electorate to comply with COVID diktats. All this and more.
Co-hosts Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and David Scott bringing you the latest Coronavirus updates. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVpCWSx8a6I
.
SEE MORE UK COLUMN EPISODES HERE
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-11--As Michael Flynn is Exonerated, Questions Emerge About Obama’s Direct Involvement in Russiagate Frau

As Michael Flynn is Exonerated, Questions Emerge About Obama’s Direct Involvement in Russiagate Fraud

The Wall Street Journal ’ s editorial board is asking why former President Obama commented on the Justice Department ’ s decision to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn , asking “ what he ’ s really worried about.
” “ Barack Obama is a lawyer , so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn , ” the editorial board wrote .
“ Since the former President chose to offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need to , we wonder what he ’ s really worried about.
” The perspective comes after Attorney General William Barr dropped the charges of lying to the FBI against Flynn , President Trump ‘ s first national security adviser , after unsealed documents showed one bureau agent asking in a handwritten note whether the bureau ’ s goal was to “ to get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired.
” Obama weighed in on the decision during a call on Friday , the details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confirmed by his spokeswoman .
“ There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free , ” Obama said to approximately 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association .
“ That ’ s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk .
And when you start moving in those directions , it can accelerate pretty quickly as we ’ ve seen in other places.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ eager to distort the truth ” ahead of an investigation being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation .
*** For more analysis on the Obama Administration and the FBI ’ s corrupt entrapment of Flynn , US lawyer Robert Barnes explains how General Flynn was persecuted by his own government .
Watch :

By
.
VIDEO: Judge Jeanine discusses evidence that President Obama’s White House was the hub of a ‘bloodless coup d’état’, and that Obama himself actually knew about the FBI’s corrupt plan o take-down President elect Donald Trump.
This week it was announced that the US Justice Department is dropping its criminal case against President Donald Trump’s initial choice for national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had previously pleaded guilty for supposedly lying to Robert Mueller’s FBI interrogators over a conversation with a Russian ambassador during the Trump transition period following he 2016 election.
Now, after nearly three years, evidence has emerged which proves Mueller’s prize scalp in the Russiagate investigation was really a victim of FBI entrapment and fraud by Obama Administration officials desperate to derail Trump’s first term in office. This prompted the the US Justice Department to drop all charges against General Flynn, after the Attorney General confirmed that Flynn’s previous statements to the FBI were in fact inconsequential to the Mueller probe and that Flynn did nothing wrong.
Justice officials have argued that Flynn’s subsequent statements to Mueller’s Russiagate witch hunt were actually irrelevant because the FBI had previously concluded that there was no evidence Mr. Flynn had ‘colluded’ with the Russians, and that his statements in question were not ‘material’ to any viable counterintelligence investigation.
The move to drop the case was filed with a federal judge last Thursday, and is certain to destroy what is left of the Mueller investigation and a corrupt epoch in the history of the FBI itself.
However, more crucially, this latest breach in what was already a flailing Russiagate narrative bring the spotlight onto the Obama Administration itself, as more proof has emerged that President Barack Obama not only had knowledge of his DOJ’s and FBI’s plot to destroy Trump – Obama himself was receiving updates on the progress of the attempted coup. This latest revelation jarred Trump, who took to social media to express his anger over the saga saying, “The biggest political crime in American history, by far!”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1259493483733270530?s=20 Reports now suggest that Obama was in the loop. Conservative talk show host Buck Sexton received much attention this past week after positing that Obama had “used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration.” Documents released on Thursday showed how during during an Oval Office meeting on Jan. 5, 2017, that Obama had revealed he had detailed knowledge of the December 2016 calls – apparently wire taps. This revelation had ‘surprised’ then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Obama’s revealed his knowledge of Flynn’s calls , according to the documents. Normally, Democrat critics of Trump would write off such talk as baseless partisan accusations, but it seems more likely this story has legs after it was Obama himself decided to publicly weigh-in on the Flynn case, apparently in desperation. It is perhaps no coincidence that Obama has entered the fray just as an extremely damning investigation is currently being conducted by US Attorney John Durham who is looking into the legitimacy of the entire Mueller probe and Russiagate investigation which dominated 3 years of news and legal coverage in the US but produced nothing in he end. The Hill reports…
IMAGE: General Michael Flynn and former US President Obama. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board is asking why former President Obama commented on the Justice Department’s decision to drop the case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, asking “what he’s really worried about.” “Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own Administration in targeting Mr. Flynn,” the editorial board wrote. “Since the former President chose to offer his legal views when he didn’t need to, we wonder what he’s really worried about.” The perspective comes after Attorney General William Barr dropped the charges of lying to the FBI against Flynn, President Trump‘s first national security adviser, after unsealed documents showed one bureau agent asking in a handwritten note whether the bureau’s goal was to “to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired.” Obama weighed in on the decision during a call on Friday, the details of which were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by his spokeswoman. “There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free,” Obama said to approximately 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association. “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic—not just institutional norms—but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk. And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly as we’ve seen in other places.” The Journal also accused Obama of being “eager to distort the truth” ahead of an investigation being conducted by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia investigation. ***
For more analysis on the Obama Administration and the FBI’s corrupt entrapment of Flynn, US lawyer Robert Barnes explains how General Flynn was persecuted by his own government. Watch: STAY TUNED FOR MORE UPDATES. READ MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russiagate Files SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-12--‘A Hill I’ll Die On’ – US Police Officer Suspended for COVID Video Defending First Amendment

Last week , one brave US police officer from Seattle , Greg Anderson , took to social media to speak out against what he felt were unconstitutional measures and policies being deployed by the State against the people during ‘ Lockdown.
’ The video went viral .
After political pressure was placed on the city ’ s police department by the governor of Washington state , he was then threatened with termination unless he removed the video from the internet .
Here ’ s what happened next : “ I ’ ve received tons of questions regarding my termination from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I figured I should explain .
I have been placed on administrative leave ( still being paid ) pending investigation .
I was told by both the agency and my union that this will result in termination due to it being an insubordination charge for refusing to take down the video .
I ’ m not sure what the timeline looks like .
I walk un-intimidated into the fray .
Thank you for all the support.
” Police officer Greg Anderson from Seattle explains what happened after his first YouTube video .
Watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BECOMING A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV

By
Last week, one brave US police officer from Seattle, Greg Anderson, took to social media to speak out against what he felt were unconstitutional measures and policies being deployed by the State against the people during ‘Lockdown.’ The video went viral. After political pressure was placed on the city’s police department by the governor of Washington state, he was then threatened with termination unless he removed the video from the internet. Here’s what happened next:
“I’ve received tons of questions regarding my termination from the Port of Seattle Police. So I figured I should explain. I have been placed on administrative leave (still being paid) pending investigation. I was told by both the agency and my union that this will result in termination due to it being an insubordination charge for refusing to take down the video. I’m not sure what the timeline looks like. I walk un-intimidated into the fray. Thank you for all the support.”
Police officer Greg Anderson from Seattle explains what happened after his first YouTube video. Watch:
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-12--COVID-19 Crisis: Why is West copying all China’s COVID policies?

The COVID-19 crisis has seen a wave of mass hysteria and panic sweeping across the planet , which seems to @ @ @ @ @ overreact in grand fashion .
Where did the UK government get the idea to construct @ @ @ @ @ hospitals ?
Where is the West getting all of its prompts , ideas and policies @ @ @ @ @ the onset , western leaders in the US , UK and Europe – have all @ @ @ @ @ far , the results have been disastrous for the major western countries .
Why is @ @ @ @ @ that the West , particularly the United States , has always prided itself on being @ @ @ @ @ of China , and that the Trump Administration has been using the COVID crisis to @ @ @ @ @ with China ?
Could it be that the Coronavirus crisis has initiated a dark process @ @ @ @ @ ?
UKC News co-hosts Patrick Henningsen and Mike Robinson offer some answers these questions .
@ @ @ @ @ BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV

By
The COVID-19 crisis has seen a wave of mass hysteria and panic sweeping across the planet, which seems to have prompted Western governments to overreact in grand fashion. Where did the UK government get the idea to construct nine “Nightingale” pop-up hospitals? Where is the West getting all of its prompts, ideas and policies? The answer: from the onset, western leaders in the US, UK and Europe – have all been copying China. Thus far, the results have been disastrous for the major western countries.
Why is this happening, especially seeing that the West, particularly the United States, has always prided itself on being the ideological ‘opposite’ of China, and that the Trump Administration has been using the COVID crisis to accelerate a new cold-hot war with China? Could it be that the Coronavirus crisis has initiated a dark process of harmonization for global fascism?
UKC News co-hosts Patrick Henningsen and Mike Robinson offer some answers these questions. Watch:
(This is an edited segment from a live news program broadcast on April 24, 2020)
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-13--INTERVIEW: Debunking the COVID-19 Narrative with Prof. Dolores Cahill

Are public health officials and the mainstream media really telling the public scientific accurate and correct information about the Coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ Was there any scientific or medical basis for governments to impose a lockdown ?
Are @ @ @ @ @ misinformation about COVID-19 ?
Is this misinformation harming the public and causing needless suffering and @ @ @ @ @ yes .
Computing Forever speaks with Professor Dolores Cahill an experienced biological scientist with over @ @ @ @ @ protein array , antibody array , and proteomics technology development .
Dr. Cahill dismantles many @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus repeated by politicians and public health officials .
Watch : SUPPORT OUR WORK BY @ @ @ @ @ @ 21WIRE.TV

By
Are public health officials and the mainstream media really telling the public scientific accurate and correct information about the Coronavirus and treatment for COVID-19? Was there any scientific or medical basis for governments to impose a lockdown? Are the government-media complex irresponsibly spreading misinformation about COVID-19? Is this misinformation harming the public and causing needless suffering and additional deaths? Apparently, yes.
Computing Forever speaks with Professor Dolores Cahill an experienced biological scientist with over 25 years expertise in high-throughput protein array, antibody array, and proteomics technology development. Dr. Cahill dismantles many of the popular assumptions about Coronavirus repeated by politicians and public health officials. Watch:
NOTE: The original video which was posted was censored by YouTube.
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-13--UKC News: Government Now Scrambling to Justify Disastrous Lockdown Policy

As the summer fast approaches and the threat of the Coronavirus rapidly subsides , government spin doctors are becoming increasingly @ @ @ @ @ failing narrative .
In order to do this , more power is being devolves to @ @ @ @ @ agencies – including the creation of a new agency in order to elevate the concept @ @ @ @ @ ” in the eyes of the public .
Are the government preparing the public for @ @ @ @ @ Terror ” security theatre ?
Meanwhile , the real facts continue to reveal themselves – @ @ @ @ @ deaths are a direct result of lockdown policy , but also that this COVID-19 epidemic @ @ @ @ @ no more deadly than a bad influenza season .
All this and more .
Co-hosts @ @ @ @ @ and Alex Thomson with the latest Coronavirus updates .
Watch : SUPPORT OUR WORK BY @ @ @ @ @ @ 21WIRE.TV

By
As the summer fast approaches and the threat of the Coronavirus rapidly subsides, government spin doctors are becoming increasingly desperate to hammer home a failing narrative. In order to do this, more power is being devolves to the security services and spying agencies – including the creation of a new agency in order to elevate the concept of a “bio threat” in the eyes of the public. Are the government preparing the public for a new “War on Terror” security theatre? Meanwhile, the real facts continue to reveal themselves – clearly demonstrating that many excess deaths are a direct result of lockdown policy, but also that this COVID-19 epidemic has turned out to be no more deadly than a bad influenza season. All this and more.
Co-hosts Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and Alex Thomson with the latest Coronavirus updates. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPY3w3EO5tA
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-05-13--Locked-Up Texas Hair Salon Owner Released from Jail – Business is Now Booming

Last week a hair salon owner from the Dallas area was sentenced to a week in jail for refusing to obey state lockdown orders to close her shop which the Governor deemed as a “ nonessential business.
” In this way , the government has been picking winners and losers in the lockdown lottery .
During her sentencing the Judge tried to demean her for showing no “ remorse or regret ” and for “ flagrant and intentional ” flouting of arbitrary lockdown rules , but she stood by her principles telling the court : “ Sir , if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kids getting fed , then please go ahead with your decision but I am not going to shut the salon.
” After serving her short sentence , Shelley Luther , owner of Salon a la Mode in Addison Dallas , has returned to work and is reporting that business has been booming ever since she returned to work .
“ We have people traveling from across the United Sates to get a haircut just to prove a point that they support us .
This really has , to me , given people that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Luther .
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @ 21WIRE.TV

By
Last week a hair salon owner from the Dallas, Texas area was sentenced to a week in jail for refusing to obey state lockdown orders to close her shop which the Governor deemed as a “nonessential business.” In this way, the government has been picking winners and losers in the lockdown lottery.
During her sentencing the Judge tried to demean her for showing no “remorse or regret” and for “flagrant and intentional” flouting of arbitrary lockdown rules, but she stood by her principles telling the court:
“Sir, if you think the law is more important than kids getting fed, then please go ahead with your decision but I am not going to shut the salon.”
After serving her short sentence, Shelley Luther, owner of Salon a la Mode in Addison Dallas, has returned to work and is reporting that business has been booming ever since she returned to work.
“We have people traveling from across the United Sates to get a haircut just to prove a point that they support us. This really has, to me, given people that sense of liberty back,” said Luther.
Watch her recent interview:
.
READ MORE COVID-19 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire COVID-19 Files
SUPPORT OUR WORK BY SUBSCRIBING & BECOMING A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV