ukcolumn--2020-10-05--COVID-19 — Everything And Nothing

COVID-19 — Everything And Nothing

COVID-19 is the respiratory disease that some patients suffer following infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus .
The question is how many ?
A disease can be clearly defined .
It has a specific cause , a defined set of symptoms and observable physical effects .
Scientific evidence indicates that there is a novel viral respiratory disease called COVID-19 .
The problem is that we have no idea how many people are affected by it .
Office of National Statistics figures show that just 9 % of people who were said to have died from COVID-19 had no other underlying health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by other nations , including Italy and the U.S .
These are the minority of people whose deaths can be most clearly attributed to COVID-19 .
For the remaining , significant majority the evidence that they died of COVID-19 is far less certain .
Mortality caused by COVID-19 seems to be primarily from lung damage .
Tiny blood clots ( microthrombi ) appear to form in the lungs , reducing oxygen intake .
It is possible for these tiny clots to migrate to other organs causing wider organ damage .
However , post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clearly ascertain the direct impact of COVID-19 on other organs .
Damage appears to occur for a number of reasons .
There is evidence of the direct impact of the disease , but also damage from an immune response ( cytokine storm ) , damage from comorbidity ( blood clotting due to obesity etc ) , indirect damage from oxygen depletion and the toxic effect of treatments .
Clearly attributing death to COVID-19 is far from straightforward .
Many of the claimed symptoms of COVID-19 , such as loss of taste and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a result , the COVID-19 narrative is largely based upon statistical analysis , rather than medical science .
However , the systems created to gather that data are questionable .
The reliability of data , the validity of tests and , in particular , the manner of the reporting of the statistics , often misleads the public .
Such as it is , the data indicates an Infection Mortality Rate ( IFR ) somewhere between 0.1 - 0.5 % .
This is comparable to a relatively severe , but not population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to be in the range of a bad influenza season and there is little to no evidence that ‘ lockdown ’ measures have any impact on COVID-19 mortality .
If anything , it appears lockdown increased the mortality risk for the wider population .
Most people develop only mild or no symptoms and the hospitalisation rate is again similar to influenza .
In western democratic nations the median age of mortality is over 80 yrs .
For example , in Sweden the median mortality age is 84 yrs .
The U.S. is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just 79 yrs .
In Italy , fewer than 5 % of those who have had their deaths attributed to COVID-19 had no serious comorbidities .
On average , across western democracies , up to two thirds of mortality occurred in care settings .
Reports of young people dying `` of COVID-19 '' have been consistently false .
There is no appreciable risk for people of working age .
Save for the tiny minority of immunosuppressed people who are vulnerable to all viruses and diseases .
COVID-19 mortality risks increase with age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Mortality distribution is practically indistinguishable from normal mortality .
COVID-19 is consistently reported to the public as if it presents a significant threat to the population , yet right from the beginning of the ‘ pandemic ’ , it was determined not to be a High Impact Infectious Disease ( HCID ) , as overall mortality is low .
Claimed disease prevalence is being used by governments to continue the process of social , economic , political and cultural transformation .
The objective seems to be to create a global surveillance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where every aspect of our lives will be controlled by our biosecurity or immunity status .
In order to deal with this allegedly severe threat , the governments are forcing our behaviour change .
What is the evidence to support this claim that COVID-19 is a major threat ?
Does the scale of the problem warrant the total restructuring of society ?
According to the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) COVID-19 is the COronaVIrus Disease , discovered in 2019 .
It is distinct from the SARS-CoV-2 virus , said to commonly cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biological cause behind the condition .
• A consistent change in anatomy , due to the disease , can be observed .
Therefore , in classifying COVID-19 as a disease , the WHO claims it meets these criteria .
As we will discuss , COVID-19 possesses the characteristics of a disease .
However , the list of symptoms used to diagnose COVID-19 `` cases '' is ambiguous and the common test used to allegedly find them in the community is fundamentally flawed .
Instead of accurate and robust diagnostic and testing procedures we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a testing program seemingly designed to hugely inflate the alleged public health impact of COVID-19 .
The reported claims about the level of disease in the population are doubtful .
It is not that COVID-19 can not be accurately identified , but rather that governments and corporate run testing facilities are reporting nearly everything as COVID-19 without justification .
The frequency with which SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 is far from certain .
While SARS-CoV-2 may be a common virus it does not mean that COVID-19 is anything more than a rare disease .
Presently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream media ( MSM ) are among many organisations around the world claiming that a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 constitutes a case .
Stories of rising cases are common .
Current estimates of asymptomatic rates for SARS-CoV-2 are up to 80 % .
This means that up to 80 % of the people who are genuinely infected with SARS-CoV-2 do n't have COVID-19 and may not go on to develop COVID-19 .
Research shows that those infected with SARS-Cov-2 , symptomatic or not , can shed RNA for up to three months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a positive RT-PCR test does not show that anyone currently has COVID-19 .
Similarly , a review of the available science by the Oxford Centre For Evidence Based Medicine found that the mere detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not necessarily indicate the presence of any disease .
They found : In the UK , the government 's own research found that negative and false positive rates for RT-PCR test results ( many analysed and recorded by pharmaceutical corporations ) are not reported .
While RT-PCR in the laboratory is extremely sensitive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settings controls are far less stringent .
The risk of contamination , sample degradation or other sources of error are relatively high .
Researchers stated : An RT-PCR test can detect fragments of RNA , but not that the RNA is part of an active virus , capable of causing illness .
A positive test is not evidence of an infectious disease .
It is not a `` case . ''
There is no evidence that draconian lockdowns or other measures , such as the wearing of face masks , reduce the spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this fact , the widespread reporting of supposed `` cases '' to justify further lockdowns have no basis in medical science .
When Is A Case Not A Case ?
In early August , to coincide neatly with the shift towards MSM reporting of nothing but alleged cases , the WHO decided to change their definition of COVID-19 .
Previously , the WHO Case definition for a suspected case , though ludicrously broad , did at least suggest that someone with acute respiratory illness needed to have some related respiratory symptoms .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was presumably supposed to be more conclusive than a suspected case , was simply a suspected case without any positive test for COVID-19 .
Quite what that added to degrees of certainty about the alleged prevalence of a disease is difficult to say .
With their changed definition , the WHO decided to do away with respiratory symptoms for a suspected case .
Those feeling a little depressed , who have a headache or feel bit run down , as long as they live in or have recently visited an area of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been contact traced to someone else who has , can be diagnosed as a suspected COVID-19 case .
In the UK , as elsewhere , an area of `` community transmission , '' more recently re-branded as an `` area of intervention , '' is an arbitrary declaration by the government based upon extremely dubious data .
For example , Leicester was recently deemed to be a community transmission area as a result of the UK government 's Pillar 2 test data .
This data is provided to the UK government by pharmaceutical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the only fundamental conflict of financial interest that pervades the government response .
Office of National Statistic ( ONS ) data , combined with a calculated minimum false positive rate of 0.8 % , led researcher Dr. Michael Yeadon to conclude that approximately 90 % of the Pillar 2 positive test results , widely disseminated by the MSM to support the second wave narrative , are false .
There is no detection of any SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the vast majority of these alleged cases .
So poor is the Pillar 2 data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting of it in May 2020 .
The chair of the UK Statistics Authority , David Norgrove , wrote to the Health Secretary on 3rd June complaining that Pillar 2 data was practically useless .
For the WHO to use community transmission areas as a criteria for clinical diagnoses of a disease is scientific gibberish .
Following reinstatement on July the 14th , Pillar 2 test data has been used to report the vast majority of recent alleged `` cases '' in the UK .
There is no evidence that the problems have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistics has enabled the UK government to use meaningless claims of COVID-19 cases to instigate more lockdowns .
Lockdown policies are not `` led by the science '' at all .
Nor is there any sign of this situation improving .
The WHO definition for a COVID-19 confirmed case ( as opposed to a probable case as discussed above ) is : A confirmed case relies solely upon the WHO 's Laboratory testing guidance .
It does n't matter if you have any symptoms or not .
The Laboratory guidance states : To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : they are firmly stating that SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease of COVID-19 .
This is crucial to the definition of any disease as it must have an established biological cause .
The WHO criteria for a confirmed case also infers that the detected presence of SARS-CoV-2 , regardless of viral load , proves that the tested individual has COVID-19 .
For the WHO , and western democratic governments , an RT-PCR test is the ultimate diagnosis of COVID-19 .
There appears to be a rudimentary error in the WHO 's definition of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of SARS-CoV-2 equates to the diagnosis of COVID-19 .
This is not true .
Yet governments too have ostensibly accepted this false premise .
When the virus was first discovered it was called 2019-nCoV and was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2 by the WHO .
In the WHO 's Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1 , they stated : Again , clarity is important .
The WHO unequivocally state the virus was isolated .
MN908947.1 was the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome published by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention , working in collaboration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This reported genome has been updated many times .
This was the first scientific description of the etiologic agent ( SARS-CoV-2 ) .
It is the basis for all subsequent genetic sequences and all tests are calibrated to it .
In their paper discussing the possible origins of what we now call SARS-CoV-2 , the scientists from the Wuhan CDC explained what their claim of isolating the virus meant .
They took blood and skin cell samples ( swab tests ) from seven suspected COVID-19 patients , living in Wuhan .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these samples then underwent metagenomic analysis using next-generation sequencing ( NGS ) .
They found an 87.1 % match with known SARS coronavirus .
From these they used targeted PCR ( more on this shortly ) and isolated nearly 30,000 base pairs CoV genome that shared 79.6 % sequence identity to known SARS-CoV .
Retroviruses , like SARS-CoV-2 , do n't have any DNA ( deoxyribonucleic acid ) .
They only have RNA ( ribonucleic acid ) and are called retroviruses because the need to be transcribed , using an enzyme known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively reversing normal cellular transcription .
The transcription of the RNA produces cDNA ( complimentary DNA ) which can then be amplified using cycles of Polymerase Chain Reaction ( PCR ) .
The Chinese team amplified the cDNA through 40 qPCR cycles .
While this is quite normal for qPCR experiments , in doing so they also amplified all dilution errors .
That is , they amplified all contaminants too .
According to the MIQE standards for qPCR , 40 cycles is the absolute limit of reliability and anything above 35 cycles would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RNA can not be known .
The inventor of PCR Karry Mullis , speaking about the use of qPCR to detect HIV , another retrovirus , stated : Writing for the Infectious Diseases Society of America , researchers considered the minimum cycle threshold ( Ct or Cq ) for effectively identifying the presence of SARS-CoV-2 .
They found that anything above 34 cycles would indicate that the test subject did not have any `` meaningful or transmissible disease . ''
The WHO 's standard for RT-PCR to identify alleged COVID-19 `` cases '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was isolated based upon the sequencing of an unknown quantity of viral RNA segments from in 5 patients .
Because the quantity of the RNA was unknown , there was no indication that the sequenced RNA fragments caused any illness in the 5 test subjects .
A causal link between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease was not established in the RT-qPCR experiment which is the foundation of all subsequent tests and claims .
Nor is the link between viral load and the subsequent onset of COVID-19 clearly understood .
While the SARS-CoV-2 genome may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 40 cycles , there is poor evidence that it commonly causes a `` meaningful or transmissible disease . ''
Nor does the WHO 's recommended practice of 50 cycles of PCR , commonly used to determine COVID-19 cases , allow for any identification of any transmissible disease .
The established biological cause of COVID-19 was proven , but the frequency with which it causes disease was not .
RT-PCR tests used to identify SARS-CoV-2 do not evidence the presence of COVID 19 and tell us little about its prevalence .
The WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
COVID-19 - Further Reason To Question Its Prevalence The viral isolation of 2019-nCoV ( SARS-CoV-2 ) does not mean `` isolated '' in the accepted etymological sense , which is : Instead researchers have provided electron-microscope images of something they claim to be SARS-CoV-2 virions .
However , these protein structures are not unique in their appearance .
Other intracellular groups of round vesicles , such as endocytic vesicles and exosomes , look the same .
Furthermore , while RT-PCR is extremely sensitive to possible detection of RNA , it does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if images of alleged virions are as described , it does n't mean the sequenced RNA came from them .
When German investigative journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter asked a number of scientists , who had published images of alleged virions , to confirm that these showed the isolated , purified , SARS-CoV-2 virus , none of them could .
RT-qPCR ( and RT-PCR ) allows only for the sequencing of RNA .
This alone does not prove causation of any claimed , subsequent disease .
Numerous claims by scientists , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not what they seem .
Like the word `` case , '' bandied about the MSM , the word `` isolated , '' in the mouths of some scientists , is not being used as most of us would understand it .
For example , in Australia in January 2020 Dr Mike Catton and Dr Julian Druse , representing the Doherty Institute , announced that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus .
When asked to clarify Dr Druse said : In other words , the properties of the virus are not evident from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagery .
The Australian team had calibrated their tests to the most recent update of MN908947.1 and had sequenced corresponding RNA fragments .
They had confirmed a test for the presence of a virus .
They had not isolated the virus itself nor demonstrated that it commonly caused a disease .
This explains why the Australian government state : The Australian government are not alone in being unable to verify the accuracy of their own tests .
Neither , it seems , can any other government .
Nor can any demonstrate that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and can be proven to commonly cause COVID-19 .
Canadian researcher Christine Massey made a freedom of information request , asking the Canadian government a simple question .
She asked if they could provide her with their records of the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus .
She requested that this be from a sample taken from a diseased patient , where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material .
To which the Canadian government replied : When UK researcher Andrew Johnson asked Public Health England ( PHE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Similarly in the U.S. the Centre For Disease Control ( CDC ) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel state : The CDC diagnostic panel last updated their guidance on 13th July 2020 .
Therefore , as of that date , there were no SARS-CoV-2 isolates .
There has been no subsequent update .
This indicates that , as yet , no pure viral sample has ever been obtained from any patient said to have the disease of COVID-19 .
COVID-19 - Everything and Nothing To diagnose a disease it must also be possible to observe consistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more , these observed changes are not unique to COVID-19 .
Computer tomography ( CT ) scans of alleged COVID-19 patients show a `` ground glass '' shadow in the lungs .
However , the American College of Radiology ( ACR ) are among those who caution against using CT scans as diagnoses for COVID-19 .
This is because CT imagery of COVID-19 lacks any clear distinction between a range of other respiratory illnesses .
They state : It is proposed in the UK that future `` diagnosis '' of COVID-19 infection will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests for the presence of disease antibodies .
The initial roll out of these tests was also halted after a series of errors , inaccuracies and faults were found .
The Royal College of Pathologists were compelled to commission a study highlighting the numerous inadequacies of COVID-19 antibody testing .
A systemic meta-analysis , by an international team of researchers , also found that the tests were unreliable with commercially available tests being of poor quality .
They concluded : In addition , there is scientific evidence that a large proportion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Further evidence shows that the point at which SARS-CoV-2 loses virulence ( its possible capacity to cause illness ) occurs when a little as 20 % of the community , or even less , are infected with the virus .
The initial identification of the SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated that the virus caused cell mutation ( cytopathogenic effects ) and it was seen to bind to ACE2 receptors , in cell cultures , as other SARS betacoronavirus strains do .
It had a high degree of similarity to the known SARS genome .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This suggests that a previously unknown strain of betacoronavirus exists .
This is called SARS-CoV-2 .
The binding of SARS-CoV-2 to ACE2 receptors has been seen in postmortem examinations .
This caused the microthrombi which lead to respiratory distress and oxygen depletion .
Evidence suggests , this physiological damage may be observed in about 37 % of deceased patients who had postmortems .
However , far more are diagnosed with COVID-19 .
It is reasonable to say SARS-CoV-2 can cause a novel respiratory illness called COVID-19 .
However , we lack evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nor is the wider diagnosis of COVID-19 scientifically sound .
We do n't know how many claimed cases of COVID-19 actually are COVID-19 .
There have been numerous reported accounts of people treated for respiratory symptoms .
Medical professionals have also reported periods of intense activity , within the co called COVID wards , at the peak of the crisis .
These testimonies strongly suggest the presence of a severe respiratory illness outbreak in a few regions .
This was nothing new .
It can not reliably be attributed to COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ centred upon New York so , in the UK , this outbreak was most notable in London .
However , in nearly every other part of the UK , at the height of the speculatively named pandemic , health services were experiencing a record low in patient numbers .
Scientists and governments acknowledge that the virus has neither been isolated nor purified .
It can not be shown that SARS-CoV-2 commonly causes the disease labeled as COVID-19 .
The list of symptoms attributed to it is so extensive that numerous other illnesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be misdiagnosed as COVID-19 .
We have a poor clinical diagnostic tests , incapable of determining the viral load ( quantity of RNA ) or its origins , and a meaningless set of symptoms which can not clearly distinguish COVID-19 .
Genuine COVID-19 can cause mortality but we simply have no idea to what extent .
Any hospital admission or reported mortality from COVID-19 should be viewed in this context .
If a patient presents to hospital with any respiratory symptoms , or even a range of non respiratory symptoms , a system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnosed with COVID-19 .
Similarly , a positive RT-PCR or serological test , of someone who dies , will be sufficient categorise their passing as a COVID-19 death .
We should treat all such claims with considerable scepticism .
All that we have to substantiate the claim that COVID-19 is widespread are numerous MSM reports , anecdotes from patients , and accounts from a small number of doctors using a diagnostic process designed to identify practically everything as COVID-19 .
Accurate diagnosis using the plethora of symptoms attributed to COVID 19 is impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do precisely that .
The commonly used RT-PCR test , used to identify so called COVID-19 confirmed cases , is not fit for purpose .
It is difficult to see how COVID-19 can legitimately be deemed a significant threat to public health .
Its widespread prevalence has not been demonstrated and current evidence tends towards an assessment of relatively low risk .
There is no evidence that it causes unprecedented illness or mortality .
What we have instead is an apparent disconnect between the testing program , the diagnostic process and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this appears to matter to the UK government as they , among many others , propose that our future freedoms will be restricted based upon extremely dubious claims and little else .
Government lockdowns and other response measures are in no way `` led by the science '' .
The objective appears to be to change our behaviour and our society , in preparation for a Great Reset and to `` protect '' us all with a vaccine for a disease which does not seem to present a significant risk at all @

COVID-19 is the respiratory disease that some patients suffer following infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The question is how many?
A disease can be clearly defined. It has a specific cause, a defined set of symptoms and observable physical effects. Scientific evidence indicates that there is a novel viral respiratory disease called COVID-19. The problem is that we have no idea how many people are affected by it.
Office of National Statistics figures show that just 9% of people who were said to have died from COVID-19 had no other underlying health condition. Similar figures have been reported by other nations, including Italy and the U.S. These are the minority of people whose deaths can be most clearly attributed to COVID-19. For the remaining, significant majority the evidence that they died of COVID-19 is far less certain.
Mortality caused by COVID-19 seems to be primarily from lung damage. Tiny blood clots (microthrombi) appear to form in the lungs, reducing oxygen intake. It is possible for these tiny clots to migrate to other organs causing wider organ damage. However, post mortems reveal that it is not possible to clearly ascertain the direct impact of COVID-19 on other organs.
Damage appears to occur for a number of reasons. There is evidence of the direct impact of the disease, but also damage from an immune response (cytokine storm), damage from comorbidity (blood clotting due to obesity etc), indirect damage from oxygen depletion and the toxic effect of treatments.
Clearly attributing death to COVID-19 is far from straightforward. Many of the claimed symptoms of COVID-19, such as loss of taste and smell are also attributable to other diseases.
As a result, the COVID-19 narrative is largely based upon statistical analysis, rather than medical science. However, the systems created to gather that data are questionable. The reliability of data, the validity of tests and, in particular, the manner of the reporting of the statistics, often misleads the public.
Such as it is, the data indicates an Infection Mortality Rate (IFR) somewhere between 0.1 - 0.5%. This is comparable to a relatively severe, but not population threatening, influenza outbreak.
Death rates seem to be in the range of a bad influenza season and there is little to no evidence that ‘lockdown’ measures have any impact on COVID-19 mortality. If anything, it appears lockdown increased the mortality risk for the wider population.
Most people develop only mild or no symptoms and the hospitalisation rate is again similar to influenza. In western democratic nations the median age of mortality is over 80 yrs. For example, in Sweden the median mortality age is 84 yrs. The U.S. is the exception with an apparent median mortality of just 79 yrs.
In Italy, fewer than 5% of those who have had their deaths attributed to COVID-19 had no serious comorbidities. On average, across western democracies, up to two thirds of mortality occurred in care settings. Reports of young people dying "of COVID-19" have been consistently false. There is no appreciable risk for people of working age. Save for the tiny minority of immunosuppressed people who are vulnerable to all viruses and diseases.
COVID-19 mortality risks increase with age, as nearly all mortality risks do. Mortality distribution is practically indistinguishable from normal mortality.
COVID-19 is consistently reported to the public as if it presents a significant threat to the population, yet right from the beginning of the ‘pandemic’, it was determined not to be a High Impact Infectious Disease (HCID), as overall mortality is low.
Claimed disease prevalence is being used by governments to continue the process of social, economic, political and cultural transformation. The objective seems to be to create a global surveillance, biosecurity State; a new global society where every aspect of our lives will be controlled by our biosecurity or immunity status. In order to deal with this allegedly severe threat, the governments are forcing our behaviour change.
What is the evidence to support this claim that COVID-19 is a major threat? Does the scale of the problem warrant the total restructuring of society?
What Is COVID-19?
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) COVID-19 is the COronaVIrus Disease, discovered in 2019. It is distinct from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said to commonly cause it.
A disease has three unique features:
There is an established biological cause behind the condition. A defined group of symptoms exists, characterising the disease. A consistent change in anatomy, due to the disease, can be observed.
Therefore, in classifying COVID-19 as a disease, the WHO claims it meets these criteria. As we will discuss, COVID-19 possesses the characteristics of a disease. However, the list of symptoms used to diagnose COVID-19 "cases" is ambiguous and the common test used to allegedly find them in the community is fundamentally flawed.
Instead of accurate and robust diagnostic and testing procedures we have a vague range of symptoms and a testing program seemingly designed to hugely inflate the alleged public health impact of COVID-19. The reported claims about the level of disease in the population are doubtful.
It is not that COVID-19 cannot be accurately identified, but rather that governments and corporate run testing facilities are reporting nearly everything as COVID-19 without justification.
The frequency with which SARS-CoV-2 causes COVID-19 is far from certain. While SARS-CoV-2 may be a common virus it does not mean that COVID-19 is anything more than a rare disease.
What Is A COVID-19 Case?
Presently, the UK government and the UK mainstream media (MSM) are among many organisations around the world claiming that a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 constitutes a case. Stories of rising cases are common.
Current estimates of asymptomatic rates for SARS-CoV-2 are up to 80%. This means that up to 80% of the people who are genuinely infected with SARS-CoV-2 don't have COVID-19 and may not go on to develop COVID-19.
Research shows that those infected with SARS-Cov-2, symptomatic or not, can shed RNA for up to three months. It is highly likely, then, that a positive RT-PCR test does not show that anyone currently has COVID-19.
Similarly, a review of the available science by the Oxford Centre For Evidence Based Medicine found that the mere detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA does not necessarily indicate the presence of any disease. They found:
A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.
In the UK, the government's own research found that negative and false positive rates for RT-PCR test results (many analysed and recorded by pharmaceutical corporations) are not reported. While RT-PCR in the laboratory is extremely sensitive to RNA detection, when used in community settings controls are far less stringent.
The risk of contamination, sample degradation or other sources of error are relatively high. Researchers stated:
We have been unable to find any data on the operational false positive and false negative rates in the UK COVID-19 RT-PCR testing programme. DHSC figures show that 100,664 tests were carried out on 31 May 2020...1,570 of those tests were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (1.6%). The majority of people tested on that day did not have SARS-CoV-2 (98.4% of tests are negative)...... If the operational false positive rate was 0.4%, 400 of the 1,570 positive tests would be false positives.
An RT-PCR test can detect fragments of RNA, but not that the RNA is part of an active virus, capable of causing illness. A positive test is not evidence of an infectious disease. It is not a "case."
There is no evidence that draconian lockdowns or other measures, such as the wearing of face masks, reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, irrespective of this fact, the widespread reporting of supposed "cases" to justify further lockdowns have no basis in medical science.
When Is A Case Not A Case?
In early August, to coincide neatly with the shift towards MSM reporting of nothing but alleged cases, the WHO decided to change their definition of COVID-19.
Previously, the WHO Case definition for a suspected case, though ludicrously broad, did at least suggest that someone with acute respiratory illness needed to have some related respiratory symptoms.
The WHO announced that a probable case, which was presumably supposed to be more conclusive than a suspected case, was simply a suspected case without any positive test for COVID-19. Quite what that added to degrees of certainty about the alleged prevalence of a disease is difficult to say.
With their changed definition, the WHO decided to do away with respiratory symptoms for a suspected case. Those feeling a little depressed, who have a headache or feel bit run down, as long as they live in or have recently visited an area of "community transmission," or have been contact traced to someone else who has, can be diagnosed as a suspected COVID-19 case.
In the UK, as elsewhere, an area of "community transmission," more recently re-branded as an "area of intervention," is an arbitrary declaration by the government based upon extremely dubious data. For example, Leicester was recently deemed to be a community transmission area as a result of the UK government's Pillar 2 test data.
This data is provided to the UK government by pharmaceutical corporations like Astrazeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Far from the only fundamental conflict of financial interest that pervades the government response.
Office of National Statistic (ONS) data, combined with a calculated minimum false positive rate of 0.8%, led researcher Dr. Michael Yeadon to conclude that approximately 90% of the Pillar 2 positive test results, widely disseminated by the MSM to support the second wave narrative, are false. There is no detection of any SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the vast majority of these alleged cases.
So poor is the Pillar 2 data, the government had to suspend the reporting of it in May 2020. The chair of the UK Statistics Authority, David Norgrove, wrote to the Health Secretary on 3rd June complaining that Pillar 2 data was practically useless. For the WHO to use community transmission areas as a criteria for clinical diagnoses of a disease is scientific gibberish.
Following reinstatement on July the 14th, Pillar 2 test data has been used to report the vast majority of recent alleged "cases" in the UK. There is no evidence that the problems have been fixed.
This deceptive use of statistics has enabled the UK government to use meaningless claims of COVID-19 cases to instigate more lockdowns. Lockdown policies are not "led by the science" at all. Nor is there any sign of this situation improving.
COVID-19 - Initial Reasons To Question Its Prevalence?
The WHO definition for a COVID-19 confirmed case (as opposed to a probable case as discussed above) is:
A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.
A confirmed case relies solely upon the WHO's Laboratory testing guidance. It doesn't matter if you have any symptoms or not. The Laboratory guidance states:
The etiologic agent [causation for the disease] responsible for the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan has been identified as a novel betacoronavirus, (in the same family as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV).
To be clear about the WHO's claim: they are firmly stating that SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease of COVID-19. This is crucial to the definition of any disease as it must have an established biological cause.
The WHO criteria for a confirmed case also infers that the detected presence of SARS-CoV-2, regardless of viral load, proves that the tested individual has COVID-19. For the WHO, and western democratic governments, an RT-PCR test is the ultimate diagnosis of COVID-19.
There appears to be a rudimentary error in the WHO's definition of a COVID-19. It assumes that the detection of SARS-CoV-2 equates to the diagnosis of COVID-19. This is not true. Yet governments too have ostensibly accepted this false premise.
When the virus was first discovered it was called 2019-nCoV and was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2 by the WHO. In the WHO's Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1, they stated:
The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020......On 12 January 2020, China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.
Again, clarity is important. The WHO unequivocally state the virus was isolated.
MN908947.1 was the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome published by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, working in collaboration with the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre. This reported genome has been updated many times.
This was the first scientific description of the etiologic agent (SARS-CoV-2). It is the basis for all subsequent genetic sequences and all tests are calibrated to it. In their paper discussing the possible origins of what we now call SARS-CoV-2, the scientists from the Wuhan CDC explained what their claim of isolating the virus meant.
They took blood and skin cell samples (swab tests) from seven suspected COVID-19 patients, living in Wuhan.
After filtering out the human genome, 5 of these samples then underwent metagenomic analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS). They found an 87.1% match with known SARS coronavirus. From these they used targeted PCR (more on this shortly) and isolated nearly 30,000 base pairs CoV genome that shared 79.6% sequence identity to known SARS-CoV.
The Wuhan researchers stated:
The culture supernatant was examined for the presence of virus by qRT-PCR methods developed in this study.....For qPCR analysis, primers based on the S gene of 2019-nCoV were designed.....Amplification was performed as follows: 50 °C for 3 min, 95 °C for 30 s followed by 40 cycles consisting of 95 °C for 10 s and 60 °C for 30 s.
SARS-CoV-2 is a positive strand RNA virus. They only posses RNA (ribonucleic acid) but, in order to assemble (sequence) the genetic code, the trace fragments of RNA need to be amplified many times using cycles of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). However, PCR can only amplify DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). So the RNA is first transcribed, using a viral enzyme known as reverse transcriptase (RT), effectively reversing normal cellular transcription. The transcription of the RNA produces cDNA (complimentary DNA) which can then be amplified using PCR.
The Chinese team amplified the cDNA through 40 qPCR cycles. While this is quite normal for qPCR experiments, in doing so they also amplified all dilution errors. That is, they amplified all contaminants too. According to the MIQE standards for qPCR, 40 cycles is the absolute limit of reliability and anything above 35 cycles would indicate that the quantity of the target RNA cannot be known.
The inventor of PCR Karry Mullis, speaking about the use of qPCR to detect HIV, another retrovirus, stated:
Quantitative PCR [qPCR)] is an oxymoron.' PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers (viral load) ... These tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all ... The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.
Writing for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, researchers considered the minimum cycle threshold (Ct or Cq) for effectively identifying the presence of SARS-CoV-2. They found that anything above 34 cycles would indicate that the test subject did not have any "meaningful or transmissible disease." The WHO's standard for RT-PCR to identify alleged COVID-19 "cases" recommends 50 cycles of amplification.
SARS-CoV-2 was isolated based upon the sequencing of an unknown quantity of viral RNA segments from in 5 patients. Because the quantity of the RNA was unknown, there was no indication that the sequenced RNA fragments caused any illness in the 5 test subjects.
A causal link between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease was not established in the RT-qPCR experiment which is the foundation of all subsequent tests and claims. Nor is the link between viral load and the subsequent onset of COVID-19 clearly understood.
While the SARS-CoV-2 genome may have been sequenced, given a Ct of 40 cycles, there is poor evidence that it commonly causes a "meaningful or transmissible disease." Nor does the WHO's recommended practice of 50 cycles of PCR, commonly used to determine COVID-19 cases, allow for any identification of any transmissible disease.
The established biological cause of COVID-19 was proven, but the frequency with which it causes disease was not. RT-PCR tests used to identify SARS-CoV-2 do not evidence the presence of COVID 19 and tell us little about its prevalence. The WHO's assertion that they do is false.
COVID-19 - Further Reason To Question Its Prevalence
The viral isolation of 2019-nCoV (SARS-CoV-2) does not mean "isolated" in the accepted etymological sense, which is:
Chemistry Biology: - Obtain or extract (a compound, microorganism, etc.) in a pure form......Biology - A culture of microorganisms isolated for study.
Instead researchers have provided electron-microscope images of something they claim to be SARS-CoV-2 virions. However, these protein structures are not unique in their appearance. Other intracellular groups of round vesicles, such as endocytic vesicles and exosomes, look the same.
Furthermore, while RT-PCR is extremely sensitive to possible detection of RNA, it does not identify where those fragments originated. Even if images of alleged virions are as described, it doesn't mean the sequenced RNA came from them.
When German investigative journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter asked a number of scientists, who had published images of alleged virions, to confirm that these showed the isolated, purified, SARS-CoV-2 virus, none of them could. RT-qPCR (and RT-PCR) allows only for the sequencing of RNA. This alone does not prove causation of any claimed, subsequent disease.
Numerous claims by scientists, that they have isolated the virus, are not what they seem. Like the word "case," bandied about the MSM, the word "isolated," in the mouths of some scientists, is not being used as most of us would understand it.
For example, in Australia in January 2020 Dr Mike Catton and Dr Julian Druse, representing the Doherty Institute, announced that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When asked to clarify Dr Druse said:
We have short (RNA) sequences from the diagnostic test that can be used in the diagnostic tests....it's an exact match to the sequences from China....it tells you that your test method is spot on.
And Dr Catton added:
In answer to your question - what's the virus doing - the segments are too short to shed light on the properties of the virus.
In other words, the properties of the virus are not evident from either the RNA sequencing nor the electron-microscope imagery. The Australian team had calibrated their tests to the most recent update of MN908947.1 and had sequenced corresponding RNA fragments. They had confirmed a test for the presence of a virus. They had not isolated the virus itself nor demonstrated that it commonly caused a disease.
This explains why the Australian government state:
The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base...The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is still being determined..... There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.
The Australian government are not alone in being unable to verify the accuracy of their own tests. Neither, it seems, can any other government. Nor can any demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, purified and can be proven to commonly cause COVID-19.
Canadian researcher Christine Massey made a freedom of information request, asking the Canadian government a simple question. She asked if they could provide her with their records of the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus.
She requested that this be from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. To which the Canadian government replied:
Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any records responsive to your request.
When UK researcher Andrew Johnson asked Public Health England (PHE) the same question they responded:
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way suggested by your request.
Similarly in the U.S. the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel state:
...No quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available........Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
The CDC diagnostic panel last updated their guidance on 13th July 2020. Therefore, as of that date, there were no SARS-CoV-2 isolates. There has been no subsequent update. This indicates that, as yet, no pure viral sample has ever been obtained from any patient said to have the disease of COVID-19.
COVID-19 - Everything and Nothing
To diagnose a disease it must also be possible to observe consistent, resultant changes in anatomy. Once more, these observed changes are not unique to COVID-19.
Computer tomography (CT) scans of alleged COVID-19 patients show a "ground glass" shadow in the lungs. However, the American College of Radiology (ACR) are among those who caution against using CT scans as diagnoses for COVID-19. This is because CT imagery of COVID-19 lacks any clear distinction between a range of other respiratory illnesses. They state:
Chest imaging in COVID-19 are not specific, and overlap with other infections, including influenza, H1N1, SARS and MERS. Being in the midst of the current flu season with a much higher prevalence of influenza in the U.S. than COVID-19, further limits the specificity of CT.
It is proposed in the UK that future "diagnosis" of COVID-19 infection will be based upon serological (blood) tests for the presence of disease antibodies. The initial roll out of these tests was also halted after a series of errors, inaccuracies and faults were found.
The Royal College of Pathologists were compelled to commission a study highlighting the numerous inadequacies of COVID-19 antibody testing. A systemic meta-analysis, by an international team of researchers, also found that the tests were unreliable with commercially available tests being of poor quality. They concluded:
Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.
In addition, there is scientific evidence that a large proportion of the population already have T-Cell immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Further evidence shows that the point at which SARS-CoV-2 loses virulence (its possible capacity to cause illness) occurs when a little as 20% of the community, or even less, are infected with the virus.
The initial identification of the SARS-CoV-2 demonstrated that the virus caused cell mutation (cytopathogenic effects) and it was seen to bind to ACE2 receptors, in cell cultures, as other SARS betacoronavirus strains do. It had a high degree of similarity to the known SARS genome.
What could have been virions were also observed. This suggests that a previously unknown strain of betacoronavirus exists. This is called SARS-CoV-2.
The binding of SARS-CoV-2 to ACE2 receptors has been seen in postmortem examinations. This caused the microthrombi which lead to respiratory distress and oxygen depletion. Evidence suggests, this physiological damage may be observed in about 37% of deceased patients who had postmortems. However, far more are diagnosed with COVID-19.
It is reasonable to say SARS-CoV-2 can cause a novel respiratory illness called COVID-19. However, we lack evidence which demonstrates that it commonly does so. Nor is the wider diagnosis of COVID-19 scientifically sound. We don't know how many claimed cases of COVID-19 actually are COVID-19.
There have been numerous reported accounts of people treated for respiratory symptoms. Medical professionals have also reported periods of intense activity, within the co called COVID wards, at the peak of the crisis. These testimonies strongly suggest the presence of a severe respiratory illness outbreak in a few regions. This was nothing new. It cannot reliably be attributed to COVID-19.
Just as the U.S outbreak was largely centred upon New York so, in the UK, this outbreak was most notable in London. However, in nearly every other part of the UK, at the height of the speculatively named pandemic, health services were experiencing a record low in patient numbers.
Scientists and governments acknowledge that the virus has neither been isolated nor purified. It cannot be shown that SARS-CoV-2 commonly causes the disease labeled as COVID-19. The list of symptoms attributed to it is so extensive that numerous other illnesses, and viral respiratory diseases, could easily be misdiagnosed as COVID-19.
We have a poor clinical diagnostic tests, incapable of determining the viral load (quantity of RNA) or its origins, and a meaningless set of symptoms which cannot clearly distinguish COVID-19. Genuine COVID-19 can cause mortality but we simply have no idea to what extent.
Any hospital admission or reported mortality from COVID-19 should be viewed in this context. If a patient presents to hospital with any respiratory symptoms, or even a range of non respiratory symptoms, a system exists which virtually guarantees they will be diagnosed with COVID-19.
Similarly, a positive RT-PCR or serological test, of someone who dies, will be sufficient categorise their passing as a COVID-19 death. We should treat all such claims with considerable scepticism.
All that we have to substantiate the claim that COVID-19 is widespread are numerous MSM reports, anecdotes from patients, and accounts from a small number of doctors using a diagnostic process designed to identify practically everything as COVID-19.
Accurate diagnosis using the plethora of symptoms attributed to COVID 19 is impossible. Yet a system has been created to do precisely that. The commonly used RT-PCR test, used to identify so called COVID-19 confirmed cases, is not fit for purpose.
It is difficult to see how COVID-19 can legitimately be deemed a significant threat to public health. Its widespread prevalence has not been demonstrated and current evidence tends towards an assessment of relatively low risk. There is no evidence that it causes unprecedented illness or mortality. What we have instead is an apparent disconnect between the testing program, the diagnostic process and the genuine prevalence of a disease.
None of this appears to matter to the UK government as they, among many others, propose that our future freedoms will be restricted based upon extremely dubious claims and little else. Government lockdowns and other response measures are in no way "led by the science".
The objective appears to be to change our behaviour and our society, in preparation for a Great Reset and to "protect" us all with a vaccine for a disease which does not seem to present a significant risk at all.


ukcolumn--2020-10-06--“Faraway People Of Whom We Know Nothing”? Azerbaijan and Turkey’s War on Armenia

The Republic of Armenia—smaller than Maryland or the English West Country—is the only territory of non-Turkic people in a belt stretching across the whole Russian underbelly from Bulgaria to China .
Armenia ’ s southern half is just 20 km wide .
For all that Armenia is the furthest-flung corner of Europe , its disappearance would release the whole power of renegade Turkey to encroach on the Middle East , Greece and the Balkans .
The map seen as the image for this podcast illustrates in blue the Turkic territories of Eurasia ; Armenia is the grey sliver just east @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Approaches podcast series , Alex Thomson and Gevorg Virats examine both the historical and the immediate build-up to the war that broke out at the end of September 2020 over the territory of Artsakh ( dubbed “ Nagorno-Karabakh ” by the USSR ) .
It is an almost exclusively Armenian-populated tiny pocket of remote highlands whose inhabitants do not accept the validity of the Soviet-era territorial claim laid to it by Turkey ’ s intimate ally , Azerbaijan .
Will Erdoğan and the jihadists he has fostered in Syria succeed in breaking Armenia @ @ @ @ @ @

The Republic of Armenia—smaller than Maryland or the English West Country—is the only territory of non-Turkic people in a belt stretching across the whole Russian underbelly from Bulgaria to China. Armenia’s southern half is just 20 km wide. For all that Armenia is the furthest-flung corner of Europe, its disappearance would release the whole power of renegade Turkey to encroach on the Middle East, Greece and the Balkans.
For the Eastern Approaches podcast series, Alex Thomson and Gevorg Virats examine both the historical and the immediate build-up to the war that broke out at the end of September 2020 over the territory of Artsakh (dubbed “Nagorno-Karabakh” by the USSR). It is an almost exclusively Armenian-populated tiny pocket of remote highlands whose inhabitants do not accept the validity of the Soviet-era territorial claim laid to it by Turkey’s intimate ally, Azerbaijan. Will Erdoğan and the jihadists he has fostered in Syria succeed in breaking Armenia on Azerbaijan’s behalf?


ukcolumn--2020-10-07--UK Column News - 7th October 2020

UK Column News - 7th October 2020

© 2006-2019 UK Column .
For permission to use any content on this website please contact us .

Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and David Scott with today's UK Column News
00:00 - Welcome
00:20 - Boris Johnson's recent "Build Back Better" Conservative virtual party conference speech. Discussing how COVID 19 is seemingly being exploited to change the system of government.
Sources:
Full Text of Speech: https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2020/10/the-prime-ministers…
05:46 - The UKC team discuss the intent of a recent statement by UK Chancellor Rishi Sunak. Highlighting extraordinary language which echos fascist doctrine.
Sources:
Full Text of Speech: https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2020/10/this-government-sto…
10:52 - Who is running the UK government? Examining the role of the Intelligence Security Committee and how information flows are tightly controlled insuring that elected representatives only have access to limited information.
Sources:
Catherine Haddon Article: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/battle-chair-intelligenc…
14:40 - The Lawless State - Letter from Dr Julian Lewis which demonstrates that decisions appear to be being made unlawfully. The UKC team discuss evidence which indicates that there exists a group of individuals who are acting as an unlawful government of occupation.
Sources:
Tobias Elwood Article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8257475/DEFENCE-COMMITTEE-CH…
22:32 - The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill. A bill proposes to authorise unlimited criminality for government agents under the guise of "keeping us safe."
Sources:
The CHIS Bill: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0188/200188.pdf
Hansard Second Reading: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-10-05/debates/DF29B1ED-6BB3-…;
ECHR Article: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-human-rights-work/what-does-…
New Bill of Rights Article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/human-rights-act-new-bil…
Police Spying Article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/03/covert-spying-activists…
33:15 - Analysis of the Statement by Zarah Sultana MP which shows there is no legal recourse for any citizen to challenge the State's authorised criminality. A call to support Zarah Sultana.
Sources:
Zara Sultana Statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMOlpIMxLfU
35:30 - Dysfunctional parliamentary process. Highlighting the near total disengagement by parliamentarians and how the MSM has ceased to fulfill its vital social function of questioning power.
Sources:
CHIS Bill vote record: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2020-10-05-125-commons
Council Surveillance Article: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/24/councils-covert-surveillance…
42:02 - Sadiq Khan email (Mayor of London) regarding policing at the Trafalgar Square protests
43:45 - The U.S press coverage of Donald Trumps claimed COVID 19 infection. Highlighting the pervasiveness of "fake news." Examining U.S. election predictions.
Sources:
Death Watch Article: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2020/10/04/deat…
Spectator Article: https://spectator.us/us-election-joe-bidens-to-lose/
Kevin McCullough Analysis: https://twitter.com/KMCRadio/status/1313319927542091777
47:25 - The Great Barrington Decleration.
Sources:
The Declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org/
49:20 - UK Clomn Article "COVID 19 - Everything and Nothing."
Sources:
COVID 19 - Everything and Nothing: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid-19--everything-and-nothing
50:45 - The team assesses recent Dominic Raab Statement on the escalating Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This appears to be a repeat of the narratives leading up to the Syrian conflict.
Sources:
Dominic Raab Statement: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nagorno-karabakh-uk-and-canada-joint…
Alex thomson Podcast: https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/faraway-people-whom-we-know-nothing-az…
53:19 - The team look at the alleged Novichok poisoning of Alexei Navalney with Novichok. Highlighting apparent discrepancies in the OPCW report findings.
Sources:
OPCW statement: https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2020/10/opcw-issues-report-techn…
56:55 - An update on Boleskine House where Satanists are trying to establish an Alistair Crowley museum and shrine.
61:25 - IICSA criticism of the Church of England exposes the hypocrisy of the IICSA process.
Sources:
Mail Article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8809895/Church-England-gave-su…
64:45 - A humorous look at the "Decent of Conservatism" meme. Round up and farewell from the UK Column team.


ukcolumn--2020-10-09--UK Column News - 9th October 2020

UK Column News - 9th October 2020

Mike Robinson and Patrick Henningsen with today's UK Column News.
00.24 - Pub Closures in Northern England. Looking at how government lockdown measures make little sense.
Sources:
Wigan Today Article: https://www.wigantoday.net/health/coronavirus/pubs-northern-england-cou…
02:35 - A repeat of the Apil COVID 19 narrative. Why are the UK government repeating a failed narrative?
Sources:
UK Government Coronavirus Dashboard: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Guardian Article: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/hospitals-in-north-of-england-to-…
06:22 - Buy To Comply. Discussing how regional, cuity, local authorities and businesses are demanding more money in return fro compliance
09:29 - Gaslighting. Examining the politician's and media's use of applied psychology to change our behaviour.
Sources:
Matt Hancock Tweet: https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1314144261215051777
Express Online Article: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1345165/UK-coronavirus-latest-lockdow…
Nadine Dorries Tweet: https://twitter.com/NadineDorries/status/1314461940081725445
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/NadineDorries
Times Article Cited by Dorries: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doctors-fear-nhs-implosion-if-covid-…
17:30 - Office of National Statistics claims of high mortality from COVID 19, compared to flu and pneumonia, are not what they seem.
Sources:
ONS Statement:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare…
(Correction) - Iain Davis Article: https://in-this-together.com/covid-19-is-a-statistical-nonsense/
ONS and HM Passport Office Guidance:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uplo…
22:06 - Why are the Passport Office giving medical advice. Could it be to create an internationally recognised Digital Immunity passport? A health immunity status determined solely by how many vaccines you have?
Sources:
BBC Article: http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200831-coronavirus-will-you-need-an-i…
Tobias Ellwood Statement: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-28/debates/D4275E96-C0FB-…
Skift Article: https://skift.com/2020/10/08/big-names-in-travel-back-commonpass-new-di…
The Commons Project: https://thecommonsproject.org/
31:45 - Impact of Lockdown on healthcare. Delays in treatment raising mortality risks across the nation. Looking at how private companies and NGO's are capitalising on the COVID scare.
Sources:
Guardian Article: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/oct/06/covid-unnecessary-preca…
HSJ Article (Paywalled): https://www.hsj.co.uk/quality-and-performance/exclusive-leaked-data-giv…
Breast Cancer Now Article: https://breastcancernow.org/about-us/news-personal-stories/reporting-br…
Addenbrook's Campaign: https://www.act4addenbrookes.org.uk/what-were-fundraising-for
Royal Liverpool Appeal: https://www.rlbuht.nhs.uk/news/support-our-staff-appeal/
40:40 - Cambridge Analytica investigation. Highlighting how Integrity Initiative journalists are rewarded by the establishment for peddling fake news.
Sources:
FT Article (No Paywall): https://todayheadline.co/icos-final-report-into-cambridge-analytica-inv…
43:17 - Discussion of U.S election. Looking at how a quite farcical U.S. election is imminent. Unfortunately with potentially deadly serious ramifications.
48:32 - The prominence of sign language interpreters. Is it an intentional tactic to disorientate and distract news report viewers. Roundup and farewell.
Sources:
Woke Capital Tweet: https://twitter.com/WokeCapital/status/1261052593528242181


ukcolumn--2020-10-11--The UK Government's scandalous cover-up of bullying, violence and suicide in schools

According to the law , child protection is everyone 's responsibility .
We have the police , Social Services , Child Protection Teams , Child Safeguarding Boards , Child Protection Charities , Family Courts and the power of Government legislation .
A vast array of bodies , authorities , charities , policy and law makers all supposedly committed to protecting children .
And then we have our Members of Parliament .
Upstanding men and women , elected to represent us both as individuals , and together with our families , children and local communities , within the power base of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children are harmed through bullying and violence at school , some to the point of suicide ( currently the leading cause of death in young people , according to the ONS ) , will those MPs , official authorities and charities not act ?
Of course the public is also responsible for the safety and welfare of children .
Why then are grieving parents who stand up to report harm to their children , faced with a wall of silence , indifference , inaction and even hostility by the very state apparatus with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do the all so powerful media companies , including the BBC of course , show faint heart in reporting the issue of bullying and suicides of children in school , or even fail to report altogether ?
Why do those upstanding MPs and Right Honourable Members of Parliament shy away from meeting parents who report these tragic cases - even when the parents are their own constituents ?
If the matter at hand , bullying and violence , affected only a handful of children , then perhaps the usual excuse , that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be drawn into each and every individual case , applies .
But the reality is very different .
Thousands of children are being affected .
Indications suggest the figure sits around 1 in 5 of the UK school aged population .
Why the 'suggestion ?
Because our Dispatches interview reveals that data on serious bullying and violence in schools is frequently not recorded , and schools get away with this because the law allows them to do so .
Cases are not recorded due to poor school management and also to simply protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children 's concerns for bullying and assaults were properly recorded in schools by law , it is highly likely that children would also reveal other instances of abuse against them .
Could it be that the State does not want children to have a voice to speak out to protect themselves ?
Many of those investigating the failure of the State to act in cases of sexual abuse of children would think so .
In this remarkable Dispatches interview , Jason Barnett reveals how having blown the whistle on widespread bullying in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teacher , he lost his job and was unable to gain justice at a tribunal .
More importantly he was to learn that bullying , frequently vicious and leading to physical harm including suicide , was affecting many children and families .
When Jason reached out , he discovered that many of these families were traumatised and often lost - the so called child protection system having either ignored their voices of concern , or worse , warned them off .
Some seven years later , after bringing families together , organising meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the UK Column in a bid to get the real story out about the failure of the State to protect children in schools across the country .
What each and every one of us can learn from this interview is that not one of our MPs stepped forward to help the multiple families that reported similar abusive bullying in schools , which in some cases had led to suicide .
No one of the 650 MPs , including the Minister for Education , engaged to understand the scale of the problem , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the education system to protect the children in their care .
Every MP was invited to a meeting on the issue of school bullying and suicide at Westminster .
Only one attended and he failed to take action .
That being so , every one of us has the opportunity to challenge our own constituency MP for their failings , cowardice and indifference towards the preventable suffering of children bullied at school .
And we need to act because as Jason Barnett remarked , `` we live in a country where the State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' them from a winter virus , yet it fails to take any meaningful action to protect our children in schools . ''
Should we allow our politicians to get away with this ?
If we do we have failed as both parents and decent human beings .
Please watch the interview here : It is a video Dispatches and runs for 1hr 23 min .
If listening to audio only be aware there are two very short sections which have on screen text and no audio .
Contact details for Jason Barnett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of the video .

According to the law, child protection is everyone's responsibility. We have the police, Social Services, Child Protection Teams, Child Safeguarding Boards, Child Protection Charities, Family Courts and the power of Government legislation. A vast array of bodies, authorities, charities, policy and law makers all supposedly committed to protecting children. And then we have our Members of Parliament. Upstanding men and women, elected to represent us both as individuals, and together with our families, children and local communities, within the power base of Westminster.
Why then, when multiple children are harmed through bullying and violence at school, some to the point of suicide (currently the leading cause of death in young people, according to the ONS), will those MPs, official authorities and charities not act?
Of course the public is also responsible for the safety and welfare of children. Why then are grieving parents who stand up to report harm to their children, faced with a wall of silence, indifference, inaction and even hostility by the very state apparatus with paid responsibility to protect children? Why do the all so powerful media companies, including the BBC of course, show faint heart in reporting the issue of bullying and suicides of children in school, or even fail to report altogether?
Why do those upstanding MPs and Right Honourable Members of Parliament shy away from meeting parents who report these tragic cases - even when the parents are their own constituents?
If the matter at hand, bullying and violence, affected only a handful of children, then perhaps the usual excuse, that those in power are just too busy to be drawn into each and every individual case, applies. But the reality is very different. Thousands of children are being affected. Indications suggest the figure sits around 1 in 5 of the UK school aged population. Why the 'suggestion? Because our Dispatches interview reveals that data on serious bullying and violence in schools is frequently not recorded, and schools get away with this because the law allows them to do so. Cases are not recorded due to poor school management and also to simply protect reputations, and cover-up.
Significantly if children's concerns for bullying and assaults were properly recorded in schools by law, it is highly likely that children would also reveal other instances of abuse against them. Could it be that the State does not want children to have a voice to speak out to protect themselves? Many of those investigating the failure of the State to act in cases of sexual abuse of children would think so.
In this remarkable Dispatches interview, Jason Barnett reveals how, having blown the whistle on widespread bullying in the special school in which he was a teacher, he lost his job and was unable to gain justice at a tribunal. More importantly he was to learn that bullying, frequently vicious and leading to physical harm including suicide, was affecting many children and families. When Jason reached out, he discovered that many of these families were traumatised and often lost - the so called child protection system having either ignored their voices of concern, or worse, warned them off.
Some seven years later, after bringing families together, organising meetings, discussion and publicity, Jason turned to the UK Column in a bid to get the real story out about the failure of the State to protect children in schools across the country.
What each and every one of us can learn from this interview is that not one of our MPs stepped forward to help the multiple families that reported similar abusive bullying in schools, which in some cases had led to suicide. No one of the 650 MPs, including the Minister for Education, engaged to understand the scale of the problem, and the total failure of schools and the education system to protect the children in their care.
Every MP was invited to a meeting on the issue of school bullying and suicide at Westminster. Only one attended and he failed to take action. That being so, every one of us has the opportunity to challenge our own constituency MP for their failings, cowardice and indifference towards the preventable suffering of children bullied at school.
And we need to act because as Jason Barnett remarked, "we live in a country where the State locks adults in their homes to 'protect' them from a winter virus, yet it fails to take any meaningful action to protect our children in schools."
Should we allow our politicians to get away with this? If we do we have failed as both parents and decent human beings. Please watch the interview here:
It is a video Dispatches and runs for 1hr 23 min. If listening to audio only be aware there are two very short sections which have on screen text and no audio. Contact details for Jason Barnett and Brian Gerrish can be found at the end of the video.


ukcolumn--2020-10-11--Covid-19: The Data Exposing the Deception

The Covid-19 data and statistics , that we are all now so familiar with , have been reported by the mainstream media ( MSM ) practically without scrutiny .
There have been some notable exceptions ; a few journalists who still understand their vital role to question power .
Unfortunately , for the most part , questions have been most notable for their absence .
Without a functioning mainstream media , and with government scientific advisors seemingly bought and paid for by pharmaceutical corporations , it has been left to independent journalists and researchers to question the Covid-19 narrative that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hesitation .
Few have worked harder than Mark Oakford .
Mark has sent 1,392 freedom of information requests to local authorities , Clinical Commissioning Groups , NHS trusts , Police Forces , Education Authorities , Ministerial departments and more .
While a few requests remain unanswered , he has gathered data on more than 1.6 million public sector workers across the UK .
That 's 1.6 million ordinary working people , employed in every community from Wick to Penzance .
Mark 's efforts have provided us an opportunity to compare what we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality in our towns and cities .
The questions he asked were reasonable and you would anticipate , given that the UK government are taking further Lockdown measures to fend off an alleged second wave of a global pandemic , that the requested data would be readily available .
Full responses to Mark 's information requests do not require any breech of data protection .
• What is the total number of your workforce ?
• What is the total number of staff who have died from Covid-19 within your organisation ?
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have been admitted to hospital as a result of Covid-19 ?
• What is the total number of staff who have been properly diagnosed with Covid-19 not requiring hospitalisation ?
• What is the total number of staff who have had to take time of work through isolation procedures not counting when offices have been closed .
Questions 1 , 2 and 5 should be simple enough for any public sector employer to answer .
Perhaps questions 3 and 4 less so , although you would expect conscientious staff to disclose this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mark 's diligent research reveal ?
The Office of National Statistics provide mortality statistics for England and Wales .
The number they record are based upon registered death certificates .
While other data sources , such as the NHS and the Care Quality Commission , also provide mortality statistics , all registered deaths must eventually have a corresponding death certificate .
For this reason , ONS figures are perhaps the most reliable .
In their latest analysis report the ONS state the following figures for England and Wales for the period between 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths were `` due '' to Covid-19 as it was identified as the `` underlying '' cause • 18,642 ( 95.8 % ) of IPC death certificates recorded Covid-19 as the underlying cause of death • 8 ( 0.04 % ) of IPC death certificates recorded influenza and pneumonia as the underlying cause of death According to the 2011 census , the population of England and Wales was 56.1 million with a working age population of 36.6 million .
Since then , the population in England and Wales has grown to 59.5 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Therefore , the current estimated working age population is 38.8 million .
Of the 59.5 million , 56.3 million ( 94.6 % ) live in England .
Giving us a current estimated working age population of 36.7 million for England .
According to the ONS , for the year up to the end of August , the age-standardised mortality rate ( ASMR ) for Covid-19 in England , among the under 65 's , was 16.6 per 100,000 people .
We note that Covid-19 deaths among those under 18 is statistically zero .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of working age in England , have died from Covid-19 so far this year .
For this age distribution , the chances of you dying from Covid-19 is allegedly 0.0166 % .
But only if you accept the government 's claims .
To date , Mark 's research of more than 1.6 million UK workers , casts significant doubt over the government figures : for 1,641,281 UK workers the total number of deaths reported was 76 .
There is a minor caveat : retirement ages vary , meaning a small number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , many people retire early and the broad impact of this on Marks FOI numbers is negligible .
Mark ’ s research reveals an ASMR of 4.6 per 100,000 ; somewhat less than the 16.6 per 100,000 reported by ONS .
The average percentage chance of Covid-19 mortality for the working population is 0.0046 % .
This is three and half times lower than the official ONS ASMR implies .
This strongly suggests that , of the 48,158 reported deaths `` due '' to Covid-19 , the real number is closer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A figure which has been mentioned before .
While the ONS report 48,158 recorded deaths `` due '' to Covid-19 , ( at the time of writing ) the UK government report 57,347 deaths `` with Covid-19 on the death certificate '' .
While there is a lag in the ONS data , due to the time taken to issue death certificates , the UK government ’ s increased tally , for the entire UK , recorded 1,173 deaths `` with Covid-19 '' since the end of August .
We have every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variation , between ONS recorded Covid-19 deaths and government claims of additional Covid-19 mortality , represents an error margin of approximately 19 % .
If Mark 's research is closer to the truth , and we have solid evidence to suggest that it is , then that error margin is greater than 75 % .
Some ONS statements make little sense .
This reveals the two fundamental problems plaguing any meaningful analysis of the reported Covid-19 statistics .
Firstly , the figures are complete mush .
They vary wildly depending upon who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are reporting and when .
Secondly , the data-gathering process itself is littered with contradictions , bizarre processes , huge conflicts of financial interest and is prone to both error and manipulation .
The death registration process , providing data to the ONS on Covid-19 mortality , results in statistical nonsense .
It forces the ONS to openly make statements like this : This illogical babble is what we have instead of meaningful mortality statistics .
That does n't stop the failed MSM from reporting them without analysis .
This confusion is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It seems to be the product of a death registration system purposefully constructed to inflate Covid-19 mortality statistics .
When influenza , pneumonia and Covid-19 are on a Medical Certificate Cause of Death ( MCCD ) together , without a postmortem , it is ridiculous to suggest that nearly 96 % of these deaths ( 18,642 ) must be Covid-19 deaths .
Some may well be , but there is significant bias towards identifying Covid-19 as the underlying cause .
The reason that they are reported as such has nothing to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the death registration system , created by the UK government , specifically for Covid-19 .
The ONS and the HM Passports Office issued guidance to doctors on completing MCCD 's during the emergency period .
This was a major relaxation of the standard checks and balances usually required to complete an MCCD .
Doctors were informed that the World Health Organisation 's International Statistical Classification of Diseases ( ICD ) for Covid-19 made it a notifiable disease under the Health Protection ( Notification ) Regulations 2010 .
Therefore , they informed MCCD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 is diagnosed either from symptoms , that could be from a range of respiratory infections ( including influenza and pneumonia ) , or RT-PCR , CT and serological tests which are frequently inaccurate or not fit for purpose .
The ONS advised doctors how to add Covid-19 to MCCD 's : This system more or less guarantees that Covid-19 will be recorded as the underlying cause of death .
There does n't even need to be any clear medical evidence that the decedent had Covid-19 .
Mark Oakford 's research demonstrates that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistical reporting of Covid-19 statistics .
There is very little reason to put much faith in official reports of Covid-19 mortality .
We are told that lockdowns are essential to avert a so-called second wave .
Yet Mark found , for public sector workers who regularly interact with the public in the community , such as police officers , fire officers , park attendants and so forth , mortality was zero .
Our entire way of life is being irrevocably changed because of the claims made about Covid-19 .
We should insists that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oakford 's collection of Freedom of Information replies is available here .

The Covid-19 data and statistics, that we are all now so familiar with, have been reported by the mainstream media (MSM) practically without scrutiny.
There have been some notable exceptions; a few journalists who still understand their vital role to question power. Unfortunately, for the most part, questions have been most notable for their absence.
Without a functioning mainstream media, and with government scientific advisors seemingly bought and paid for by pharmaceutical corporations, it has been left to independent journalists and researchers to question the Covid-19 narrative that we are all supposed to accept without hesitation. Few have worked harder than Mark Oakford.
Mark has sent 1,392 freedom of information requests to local authorities, Clinical Commissioning Groups, NHS trusts, Police Forces, Education Authorities, Ministerial departments and more.
While a few requests remain unanswered, he has gathered data on more than 1.6 million public sector workers across the UK.
That's 1.6 million ordinary working people, employed in every community from Wick to Penzance. Mark's efforts have provided us an opportunity to compare what we are told about Covid-19 mortality with the actual reality in our towns and cities.
The questions he asked were reasonable and you would anticipate, given that the UK government are taking further Lockdown measures to fend off an alleged second wave of a global pandemic, that the requested data would be readily available. Full responses to Mark's information requests do not require any breech of data protection.
Mark asked the following questions:
What is the total number of your workforce? What is the total number of staff who have died from Covid-19 within your organisation? What is the total number of staff who have been admitted to hospital as a result of Covid-19? What is the total number of staff who have been properly diagnosed with Covid-19 not requiring hospitalisation? What is the total number of staff who have had to take time of work through isolation procedures not counting when offices have been closed.
Questions 1, 2 and 5 should be simple enough for any public sector employer to answer. Perhaps questions 3 and 4 less so, although you would expect conscientious staff to disclose this to their employers.
So what does Mark's diligent research reveal?
The Official Statistics
The Office of National Statistics provide mortality statistics for England and Wales. The number they record are based upon registered death certificates. While other data sources, such as the NHS and the Care Quality Commission, also provide mortality statistics, all registered deaths must eventually have a corresponding death certificate. For this reason, ONS figures are perhaps the most reliable.
In their latest analysis report the ONS state the following figures for England and Wales for the period between 1 January to 31 August:
389,835 deaths in total
48,168 deaths were "due" to Covid-19 as it was identified as the "underlying" cause
13,619 deaths were due to pneumonia
69,781 deaths involved pneumonia
394 deaths were due to influenza.
506 deaths involved influenza
19,470 death certificates cited both influenza and pneumonia alongside Covid-19 (IPC deaths)
18,642 (95.8%) of IPC death certificates recorded Covid-19 as the underlying cause of death
8 (0.04%) of IPC death certificates recorded influenza and pneumonia as the underlying cause of death
According to the 2011 census, the population of England and Wales was 56.1 million with a working age population of 36.6 million. Since then, the population in England and Wales has grown to 59.5 million - an increase of 6%.
Therefore, the current estimated working age population is 38.8 million.
Of the 59.5 million, 56.3 million (94.6%) live in England. Giving us a current estimated working age population of 36.7 million for England.
According to the ONS, for the year up to the end of August, the age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) for Covid-19 in England, among the under 65's, was 16.6 per 100,000 people.
We note that Covid-19 deaths among those under 18 is statistically zero.
The ONS claim that approximately 6,092 people, of working age in England, have died from Covid-19 so far this year. For this age distribution, the chances of you dying from Covid-19 is allegedly 0.0166%. But only if you accept the government's claims.
To date, Mark's research of more than 1.6 million UK workers, casts significant doubt over the government figures: for 1,641,281 UK workers the total number of deaths reported was 76.
There is a minor caveat: retirement ages vary, meaning a small number of included employees will be older than 65. However, many people retire early and the broad impact of this on Marks FOI numbers is negligible.
Mark’s research reveals an ASMR of 4.6 per 100,000; somewhat less than the 16.6 per 100,000 reported by ONS.
The average percentage chance of Covid-19 mortality for the working population is 0.0046%. This is three and half times lower than the official ONS ASMR implies.
This strongly suggests that, of the 48,158 reported deaths "due" to Covid-19, the real number is closer to 13,759. A discrepancy of 34,399. A figure which has been mentioned before.
Something doesn't add up.
Why The Discrepancy?
While the ONS report 48,158 recorded deaths "due" to Covid-19, (at the time of writing) the UK government report 57,347 deaths "with Covid-19 on the death certificate".
While there is a lag in the ONS data, due to the time taken to issue death certificates, the UK government’s increased tally, for the entire UK, recorded 1,173 deaths "with Covid-19" since the end of August. We have every reason to question this number.
This variation, between ONS recorded Covid-19 deaths and government claims of additional Covid-19 mortality, represents an error margin of approximately 19%.
If Mark's research is closer to the truth, and we have solid evidence to suggest that it is, then that error margin is greater than 75%.
Some ONS statements make little sense. This reveals the two fundamental problems plaguing any meaningful analysis of the reported Covid-19 statistics.
Firstly, the figures are complete mush. They vary wildly depending upon who is reporting them, their methods, what they are reporting and when.
Secondly, the data-gathering process itself is littered with contradictions, bizarre processes, huge conflicts of financial interest and is prone to both error and manipulation.
The death registration process, providing data to the ONS on Covid-19 mortality, results in statistical nonsense. It forces the ONS to openly make statements like this:
Influenza and pneumonia was mentioned on more death certificates than COVID-19, however COVID-19 was the underlying cause of death in over three times as many deaths between January and August 2020.
This illogical babble is what we have instead of meaningful mortality statistics. That doesn't stop the failed MSM from reporting them without analysis.
This confusion is not necessarily the fault of the ONS. It seems to be the product of a death registration system purposefully constructed to inflate Covid-19 mortality statistics.
When influenza, pneumonia and Covid-19 are on a Medical Certificate Cause of Death (MCCD) together, without a postmortem, it is ridiculous to suggest that nearly 96% of these deaths (18,642) must be Covid-19 deaths. Some may well be, but there is significant bias towards identifying Covid-19 as the underlying cause.
The reason that they are reported as such has nothing to do with medical science and everything to do with the death registration system, created by the UK government, specifically for Covid-19.
The ONS and the HM Passports Office issued guidance to doctors on completing MCCD's during the emergency period. This was a major relaxation of the standard checks and balances usually required to complete an MCCD.
Doctors were informed that the World Health Organisation's International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD) for Covid-19 made it a notifiable disease under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010. Therefore, they informed MCCD signing doctors to do the following:
Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death....Covid-19 is not a reason on its own to refer a death to a coroner.
Covid-19 is diagnosed either from symptoms, that could be from a range of respiratory infections (including influenza and pneumonia), or RT-PCR, CT and serological tests which are frequently inaccurate or not fit for purpose. The ONS advised doctors how to add Covid-19 to MCCD's:
If before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give 'COVID-19' as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the test result when it becomes available. In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement.
This system more or less guarantees that Covid-19 will be recorded as the underlying cause of death. There doesn't even need to be any clear medical evidence that the decedent had Covid-19.
Mark Oakford's research demonstrates that there is something seriously amiss with the statistical reporting of Covid-19 statistics. There is very little reason to put much faith in official reports of Covid-19 mortality.
We are told that lockdowns are essential to avert a so-called second wave. Yet Mark found, for public sector workers who regularly interact with the public in the community, such as police officers, fire officers, park attendants and so forth, mortality was zero.
Our entire way of life is being irrevocably changed because of the claims made about Covid-19. We should insists that those claims be rigorously scrutinised.
--
Mark Oakford's collection of Freedom of Information replies is available here.


ukcolumn--2020-10-12--UK Column News - 12th October 2020

UK Column News - 12th October 2020

Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and David Scott with today's UK Column News.
Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and David Scott with today's UK Column News.
00.29 - Lockdowns are back. Looking at alert levels.
Sources:
Leaked Document: - https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/english/covid-19_proposed_soci…
03:20 - Fudging statistics - combining weekly flu and coronavirus surveillance.
Sources:
PHE Surveillance Week 40: - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uplo…
Mark Oakford Research: - https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid-19-data-exposing-deception
06:31 - Evidence which suggests that services will be rationed based upon vaccine status.
Sources:
Tobias Ellwood Statement: - https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-09-28/debates/D4275E96-C0FB-…
10:11 - Blood tests ended.
Sources:
BBC article: - https://web.archive.org/web/20201010133403/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/h…
Malvern Gazette: - https://www.malverngazette.co.uk/news/18780877.blood-tests-cancelled-wo…
13:24 - GP letter warning of destruction of the NHS.
Sources:
Lockdown Skeptics Letter From GP: - https://lockdownsceptics.org/letter-from-a-gp/
Hancock Tweet: - https://twitter.com/MattHancock/status/1314555278524911616
NHS Statement: - https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-becomes-the-worlds-national-heal…
Towards A Million change Agents: - https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/nhs-common-purpose-towards-million-cha…
16:25 - UK Column viewers letter to Mark Johnson MP: - Reveals lack of evidence on face masks and that MP's are not engaging directly with their constituents.
24:55 - The Cabinet Office running everything.
Sources:
Advert: - https://web.archive.org/web/20201012140744/https://www.civilservicejobs…
Success Profiles: - https://web.archive.org/web/20200827210332/https://assets.publishing.se…
36:20 - Royal Tweets - examining the new age references of Prince Charles' recent tweets on climate change.
Sources:
Royal Tweets: https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1315225262037049345
38:41 - Poverty caused by policy.
Sources:
Josh Zumbrun Article (WSJ): - https://www.365news.com/2020/10/coronavirus-has-thrown-around-100-milli…
World Bank Article: - https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2020/10/05/reversing-the-inequ…
43:57 - The Great Reset - looking at how policy is global through the lense of the soundbite Build Back Better.
Sources:
Build Back Better Campaign - https://www.buildbackbetteruk.org/
European Climate Foundation: - https://europeanclimate.org/member/1941/
49:00 - Negative Interest Rates - Evidence shows that the Bank of England is emulating the ECB and looking towards implementing negative interest rates.
Sources:
BofE Letter: - https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation…
52:03 - Central Bank Digital Currencies - preparing for the cashless society.
Sources:
B0fE Digital Currency Statement: - https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2020/october/central-banks-and-bis…
54:42 - The Cure For COVID - Prof Dalgleish concludes that government COVID response is not coherent.
Sources:
Mail article: - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8824833/Lockdown-despair-drove…
57:37 - Anti Lockdown protests and the growing resistance to government response measures.
Sources:
Mail Article: - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8828683/Piers-Corbyn-addresses…
Edinburgh News: - https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/pictures-show…
EdinburghLive Article: - https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/gallery/edinburgh-b…
Washington Times Article: - https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/18/coronavirus-and-smell-…
1:00:17 - People mobilising to spread censored information and challenge elected officials. The normality we can use as a form of resistance.


ukcolumn--2020-10-11--David Ellis Report: Anne Widdecombe

David Ellis Report: Anne Widdecombe

David Ellis speaks to Ann Widdecombe , former Brexit Party MEP and former Conservative Shadow Home Secretary , and Rusty @ @ @ @ @ ; the `` man with no gloves '' of Iranian Embassy seige-breaking team .
They @ @ @ @ @ military involvement in the civilian response to Coronavirus , defence review and military involvement in @ @ @ @ @

David Ellis speaks to Ann Widdecombe, former Brexit Party MEP and former Conservative Shadow Home Secretary, and Rusty Firmin, former 22 SAS; the "man with no gloves" of Iranian Embassy seige-breaking team.
They discuss the drive for more military involvement in the civilian response to Coronavirus, defence review and military involvement in building the media narrative.