Why a virus didn’t cause the pandemic.
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus”. However, when the genome sequence for SARS-COV-2 was released in January 2020, the test to identify its presence was created in the absence of virus samples. Therefore, since no isolates of the virus are obtainable we are compelled to explore alternative causes of the COVID-19 crisis. A number of culprits are available, if we care to search for them. Many of the pieces of the COVID jigsaw are now there to be put together.
Make no mistake, many obstacles have been put in the way to obfuscate the reality. For instance, the once censored Wuhan lab leak theory is a false flag that has been wheeled out again now that it offers a convenient distraction and reinforces the contagion narrative. An inconclusive narrative that is deeply embedded into scientific discourse. Some valid schools of thought proclaim that it is impossible to ‘catch’ a virus since they are not proven to exist or cause disease.
As previously proposed by this author, a virus circulating during the winter months would not wait in anticipation of societal lockdown before making its mark. Even if there was a novel virus, its impact was minor enough to have gone unnoticed. Before the decision was made by the UK government to lockdown the country, evidence was already emerging from Italy that those dying ‘with the virus’ were averaging 80 years of ages with co-morbidities.
The first wave of COVID and excess deaths in England only occurred once the pandemic was announced and lockdowns commenced in March 2020. Unlike the virus, lockdowns were imported from China. However, one need not look to China for the source of COVID-19 when the answers lie much closer to home.
Create the illusion
Despite evidence to the contrary, the severity of the threat facing the world from COVID-19 was inflated for public consumption and mass media was the weapon of choice. Social media, television, radio and the print press were all smartly choreographed to the same drum-beat. The fake images of bodies in the street from China, the armoured vehicles in Italy and the mantra-driven press briefings from London’s Downing Street all arrived before the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. The crafted perception of risk was far greater than the reality. The threat was initially described by the English Prime Minister — and subsequently echoed by his scientific and medical advisors — on 3 March 2020 as follows:
Let me be absolutely clear that for the overwhelming majority of people who contract the virus, this will be a mild disease from which they will speedily and fully recover as we’ve already seen.
Two weeks later, on 17 March 2020, the messaging dramatically changed to:
This is a disease that is so dangerous and so infectious that without drastic measures to check its progress it would overwhelm any health system in the world.
Generating fear, confusion and using double-speak have been regular government tactics. The focus in England shifted from building ‘herd immunity’ in the population to counting and reporting every COVID case and death (albeit within 28 days of a positive test) in the absence of any perspective or counter-measures. The first lockdown was introduced with hard-hitting mantras (“Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives”), contradictory new concepts (social distancing, asymptomatic transmission) and changes to laws; all reinforcing the illusion of a nation facing an unprecedented existential crisis. In the process, coronavirus was dramatically transformed from the common cold into the ‘invisible killer’.
Uncover the reality
In reality, the notion of a novel contagion has been nothing more than a fabricated yet powerful weapon of propaganda. The mortality and case numbers are all based on fraudulent tests and disdiagnoses; all for an unidentifiable virus not yet proven to be the cause of a disease and with a myriad of rebranded symptoms. This still begs the question, if there is no virus, why are people dying? The more important question might be, where and how are they dying.
As mentioned above and as can be seen from the chart below, the so-called virus that was circulating at the beginning of 2020 did not cause excess deaths on its own. These only occurred once the pandemic was announced and the first lockdown was brought into force. It is unusual for a seasonal virus to cause a spike of deaths in the spring, particularly as the current narrative suggests that the virus has its ‘advantage’ in winter.
The first wave of deaths with COVID and from COVID-related policies were carefully engineered. The NHS lit the touch-paper when it wrote to all hospitals (see excerpts below) asking them to free-up the maximum possible number of beds by urgently discharging any patients they could — many of whom were discharged to care homes — and cancelling all ‘non-urgent’ treatments. Yet a couple of days later, the threat from the virus was officially downgraded by the UK government. Subsequently, NHS bed occupancy in England reduced from the usual 90% to an average of 63% in the spring quarter of 2020. There was no influx of ‘large numbers of inpatients requiring respiratory support’. Accident and emergency (A&E) departments saw a huge decrease in attendances and overall admitted patient care decreased significantly during the same period.
Of those patients who were admitted to hospital and residents who were discharged to care homes, the outcomes were devastating. As indicated in the chart below, hospital and care homes’ mortality ratios increased during the lockdown period. The excess death ratio in private homes exceeded that of hospitals in the first wave, and has remained in excess every week since the arrival of COVID-19. Many of these deaths have been caused by the COVID campaign of fear. The elderly and vulnerable have been most susceptible to the threat of COVID. The average age of a COVID-labelled death is 81 for men and 84 for women, which is actually higher than the average life expectancy. Perhaps more shocking is the fact is that six out of ten COVID deaths were of people with a disability.
Treatments for COVID positive patients (note the key distinction) included the now evident inappropriate use of ventilators in hospital, segregation and isolation of patients in health and care settings, the excessive use of Do Not Resuscitate orders and administration of high-dose sedatives. The cures have been worse than the disease.
In April 2020, the ratio of excess deaths in English care homes was almost three times that of the prior five years’ average. Perhaps it is no coincidence that during the same month, prescribing of the drug midazolam increased by more than 100%, potentially hastening the death of recipients. The inhumane policy change restricting access for residents’ families removed crucial safeguards, support and surveillance which could have curtailed avoidable deaths in care homes. All official inspections were suspended during this time and, following changes to coroner guidance, any persons dying with COVID are less likely to be afforded post-mortem autopsies. Without them, it is impossible to remove or challenge the cause of death once COVID is mentioned on the deceased’s death certificate.
Following the easing of lockdown restrictions at the start of June and up to the start of the second national lockdown, there was negative excess deaths in care homes (a ratio of 0.96 versus expected levels); leading this author to suggest the initial wave of deaths were accelerated rather than excess. A similar pattern was observed in hospitals — though their activity was yet to return to normal — while deaths in private homes were 27% higher than expected. This fall in deaths occurred in the absence of any vaccines and the continued constrained use of alternative treatments.
The introduction of local restrictions in England that segued into further national lockdowns were followed by another wave of excess deaths being blamed on COVID-19. However, seeing as this virus is not proven to exist or cause disease, we need to explore other possibilities for the second spike in deaths. We can be certain that lockdowns kill — both directly and indirectly — and have led the Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya to label them “the single biggest public health mistake in history”. The chart below indicates that 95% of hospital COVID-labelled deaths occurred during periods of lockdown. It is also worth noting that, to date, more than half of these deaths have been patients over 80 years of age (less than 1% have been below 40 years of age) and 96% had other pre-existing conditions.
If we examine the period of excess mortality during the second lockdown (November 2020 — February 2021) we can see (below) that the ratio of registered to expected deaths is lower than the first lockdown. While there were more COVID deaths in the second wave, there were, perhaps surprisingly, less excess deaths. This indicates higher volumes of diagnosis which was to be expected given the vast increase in testing capacity. The first lockdown was characterised by excess deaths in care homes whereas the second wave was dominated by excess hospital deaths. However, the largest excess mortality ratio in this period was in private homes, as has been the case since the start of the pandemic. Thus underlining the massive failure of public health policy throughout the past year and a half.
Care homes were certainly not immune from the impact of the second wave of COVID cases and deaths. Following the roll-out of the vaccine there were examples of spikes in deaths in care homes, with many labelled as COVID-19. Despite the increased availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) that was lacking in the first wave, some areas experienced high volumes of care home deaths in winter when there had previously been very few in spring. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) decided to publish this care home-level COVID-19 mortality data in July 2021.
Deaths following vaccination have certainly not been restricted to the elderly. There have been a number of instances reported where working-age adults have died after receiving the COVID jab and even more reports of adverse reactions. In the UK, the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) can receive reports of adverse reactions through their Yellow Card Scheme. Data from these reports is published weekly and thus far over one million adverse reactions have been reported, including death. It is understood that these figures represent a maximum of ten per cent of the cases occurring. This is highly likely if we consider a recent publication from Public Health Scotland relating to deaths within 28 days of a COVID-19 vaccination.
Scotland had recorded almost 4,000 deaths within 28 days of a COVID vaccination in the first five months of 2021 (see chart above). If we extrapolate these figures for England based on the number of doses administered during the same period we can expect to have seen at least 40,000 deaths within four weeks of the vaccine. This is somewhere in the region of the volume of excess deaths which occurred in the second wave.
Following a number of ‘rare’, and sometime fatal, blood clots occurring in recipients of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine it was decided that alternatives should be offered to the under 40s. If such reactions are occurring in younger recipients then one would be forgiven for assuming the impact to be worse for the elderly and clinically vulnerable. During the first wave, there was a huge reduction in attendances to A&E because many were too afraid to leave their homes. Since the roll-out of the vaccine there has been a sharp increase in A&E attendances and this is not due to a rise in COVID-19 infections (see below chart).
Despite the extensive take-up of the COVID-19 vaccines it is hard to accept that lives have been saved as a result. Many conflicting claims have been made regarding the effectiveness of the vaccine — the fact that it does not stop transmission means it does not work in the way traditional vaccines are supposed to. Claims that it prevents hospitalisation and death are being shattered by a third wave of COVID admissions and stories of COVID deaths occurring in the double-vaccinated. Perhaps this should come as no surprise when the same people peddling unprecedented lockdowns are promoting the administration of experimental drugs — both of which should now be classified as harmful to health.
Despite the very low risk to young people from COVID-19, the vaccine is now being offered to 16 and 17 year-olds and younger children at increased risk of disease. One of the justifications for vaccinating younger people who are at lower risk of dying with COVID is the threat of Long COVID. Just like COVID-19, this new illness, which is also known as as ‘post-COVID-19 fatigue syndrome’, appears to be a rebranding of conditions and symptoms that existed prior to the pandemic. For instance, Long COVID is said to have over 200 symptoms yet the number of cases diagnosed is 100 times less than predicted.
COVID-19 the ideology, not the disease
Closer examination of the facts around COVID-19 portray a very different story from that being presented in the mainstream media. There are so many, arguably intended, contradictions in the official narrative. It is undeniable that the risk from coronavirus has been artificially inflated and exaggerated. The public health response has been nothing short of disastrous. The trend, timing and location of excess deaths indicates that health-related policies have caused great harm, particularly to the elderly and vulnerable. Every established healthcare metric indicates that the only pandemic we have observed is one of fear and control, not of a new illness. All of these components characterise a manufactured crisis designed to cause destruction and disruption, with a ready-made remedy waiting in the wings. Here we observe the chilling manifestation of problem — reaction — solution: create the illusion of a new disease in order to sell you the cure.