Sydney family told only one child can go to Queensland to say goodbye to dying father (link, link).
‘Australia’s border wars have hit a new low, with a Sydney family asked to decide which one of its four children will be allowed to cross the Queensland border to say goodbye to their dying dad’.
‘The Prime Minister has now been asked to intervene, with the family desperate for the youngsters to see their father while they can still recognise him’.
‘Brisbane dad and truck driver Mark Keans, 39, has inoperable cancer in his brain and lungs’.
‘His four children, all aged under 13, are stuck in Sydney, with Queensland Health authorities telling the family they can’t cross the border’.
‘Their grandfather Bruce Langborne says the kids “desperately want to see him.”’
Corona insanity strikes again.
When is enough insane s**t enough?
Airliner Kicks Off Family, Cancels Entire Plane Journey Because Baby Wasn’t Wearing a Face Mask (link).
‘Corona insanity strikes again’.
‘The father added that most of the passengers on the plane expressed support for his family’.
Spain: Cop Kneels on 14-Year-Old Boy For Refusing to Wear a Mask (link).
‘Mother also arrested during COVID confrontation’.
Corona insanity strikes again.
Australia: Corona Cops Arrest Grandma Sitting in Park For Not Wearing a Mask (link).
Corona insanity strikes again.
Quebec City Says It Will Isolate “Uncooperative” Citizens In Secret Corona Facility (link).
‘Authorities in Quebec City, Canada have announced they will isolate “uncooperative” citizens in a coronavirus facility, the location of which remains a secret’.
‘During a press conference, Dr. Jacques Girard, who heads the Quebec City public health authority, drew attention to a case where patrons at a bar were ordered to wait until their COVID-19 tests came back, but disregarded the command and left the premises before the results came back positive’.
‘This led to them being deemed “uncooperative” and forcibly interned in a quarantine facility’.
‘“[W]e may isolate someone for 14 days,” Girard said during the press conference. “And it is what we did this morning…forced a person to cooperate with the investigation…and police cooperation was exceptional.”’
‘The health official then outlined how the state is also tracking down people for violating their home quarantine and forcibly removing them to the secret facility’.
‘“Because we have had people isolated at home. And then, we saw the person was not at home. So, we went to their home, and then told them, we are isolating you where we want you to be,” said Girard’.
‘“Six other Quebec City bars “known to have been frequented by Kirouac regulars” are now being examined by public health officials,” reports the RAIR Foundation’.
‘“It should be noted that it is not being claimed that anyone is actually sick from the coronavirus. But the state has the power to force a citizen into isolation anyway.”’.
‘As we previously highlighted, the government of New Zealand announced similar measures, saying that they will put all new coronavirus infectees and their close family members in “quarantine facilities.”’
The corona insanity has spread from New Zealand to Canada.
As for the secret location, whatever has happened to habeas corpus?
I expect lawsuits to be filed.
COVID-19 – Evidence of Fraud, Medical Malpractice, Acts of Domestic Terrorism and Breaches of Human Rights (link, link).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.2 Legal (Judicial Review) Challenges
2.2 Worthless Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Testing
2.4 PHE Was Told by ACDP that COVID-19 Was Not “High Consequence”
2.5 Evidence that COVID-19 is not a “Dangerous Virus”
2.6 Recording and Reporting of COVID-19 Deaths
2.7 Reporting Of COVID Deaths in Other Countries
2.8 Causes of Death Misattributed to COVID-19
2.9 Conflicts of Interest – UK Government Minister and Advisers
3.1 Paper prepared for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
3.2 Media Campaigns of Public Intimidation?
3.3 Cressida Dick – Incitement to “shaming,” Discriminating against the Disabled.
3.4 Destruction of Buildings to Prevent “Second Virus Wave”?
4.1 Lockdown Restrictions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
4.2 Assumed Infectious Until “Proven Otherwise”
4.4 Vaccinations and Human Rights
5.1 The Health and Social Care Act (2012)
5.3 Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Other Treatment for COVID-19 Victims
5.4 Empty Beds And Nightingale Hospitals Mothballed
6.1 Persons To Be Investigated and/or Charged Under Laws Referenced in this Document
6.3 You May Not Have Heard about the Protests…
Distribution List
| Serious Fraud Office
|
NHS Improvement
Skipton House 80 London Road London SE1 6LH Email: england.whistleblowing@nhs.net Website: www.improvement.nhs.uk |
Healthcare UK
55 Whitehall London SW1A 2HP United Kingdom
+44 (0) 20 7215 5000 |
| Senior Reviewer (Responding to Concerns)
Quality Assurance Directorate Healthcare Improvement Scotland Gyle Square 1 South Gyle Crescent Edinburgh EH12 9EB Tel: 0131 623 4300 Email: hcis.respondingtoconcerns@nhs.net Website: www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org
|
National Crime Agency
PO Box 58345 London NW1W 9JJ Tel: 0370 496 7622 Email: communication@nca.gov.uk
|
Healthwatch England
151 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SZ Email: enquiries@healthwatch.co.uk
|
| Equality and Human Rights Commission
Correspondence Unit (Whistleblowing) Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square London EC4Y 8JX Tel: 0161 829 8100 Email: whistleblowing@equalityhumanrights.com
|
DHSC COVID19 Vaccine Consultation: covidvaccineconsultation@dhsc.gov.uk | enquiries@wbhelpline.org.uk
|
| whistle@pcaw.org.uk |
|
|
Signatories to this Submission
| Name | Qualification(s) | Profession | City | |
| Andrew Johnson | BSc | Technology Tutor | ad.johnson@ntlworld.com | Derby |
[To be added]
1. Introduction
This document submission brings together COVID-19 related evidence which most or all authorities seem to either be unaware of, or have decided to ignore. It is presented in an attempt to reverse this situation. This submission is supported by the signatories listed above.
I am neither a legal nor a health expert, but as a citizen of good conscience and one who has a degree in Computer Science and someone who currently works in education, has the ability to carry out research and understand the majority of what I read, I feel duty-bound to present this evidence to you. Further, I ask you who have greater responsibility and authority than I do, to take this evidence seriously and not make assumptions that – because of the nature of this submission it should simply be ignored. I must admit to being rather pessimistic that anyone reading this will undertake a serious, objective re-appraisal of the current situation – a situation that, I contend, should never have arisen in the first place.
Here, I raise many questions regarding the lawfulness of actions of the British Broadcast and Print Media, the UK Government and its advisors, in relation to the alleged pandemic.
This document, which should be shown to senior personnel, will be publicly posted on a website, along with the distribution and signatory list and therefore considered as being a “notice” to these organisations to act in the public interest and protect public health, rather than continue to act based on a false and almost entirely fear-driven narrative, which has been promulgated and developed through controlled broadcast and print media and the use of widespread censorship by the online “Tech Platforms” such as YouTube, Google and Facebook. Additionally, professionals that would normally speak out about this evidence have been threatened with sanctions. For example, in a BMJ news story from 06 July 2020, we read[i]:
A consultant surgeon has been suspended from the UK medical register for 12 months pending the outcome of an investigation by the General Medical Council, after posting videos on social media claiming that covid-19 is a hoax.
This document includes important evidence of
- Fraud (section 2)
- Acts of Domestic Terrorism (section 3)
- Human Rights Violations (section 4)
- Medical Malpractice on a grand scale and breaches of Health Care Laws (section Error! Reference source not found.)
People in government, global organisations and mainstream media should all be held accountable for their actions and lack of rational analysis and failure to appropriately gather and study evidence and apply logic. Instead, it can be concluded, any such analysis has been heavily influenced by, or has experienced interference from, powerful political and commercial vested interests.
With the upcoming proposed vote on extending the Coronavirus Bill’s “lifetime”, it is even more important that a firm basis of carefully and independently-reviewed scientific evidence for such an extension is comprehensively established.
I call for immediate investigation and action to avert further instances of each of the above and further misery, loss of life and livelihoods, because of an unproven threat – and scaremongering over a “second pandemic wave” – or any similar scenario, when it is not backed by a thoroughly and independently-reviewed body of scientific evidence.
1.1 Background
The global consequences of the alleged COVID-19 “pandemic” are catastrophic. The consequences for the UK can be described in the same manner. It is easy to assume that, because of the scale of the catastrophe, the most often-stated reasons for the occurrence of this catastrophe must be true. However, it is worth noting a statement attributed to Joseph Goebbels, thus
[2]:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
In April and May 2020, I compiled an independent report[3] to address some of the false and incomplete information and corporate propaganda that was being circulated by mainstream sources. That report was distributed to hundreds or thousands of people – yet no one has offered any substantive corrections to it. I will quote some of this report in the sections below.
1.2 Legal (Judicial Review) Challenges
Due to the unprecedented (and unnecessary) draconian action by the government, there are many people like myself who consider that government officials and personnel have broken the law (and continue to do so) in relation to many of the COVID-19 measures taken. Two independently established “Judicial Review” challenges to the government are currently in progress. These cases have barely been publicised – this fact alone illustrates that the mainstream media primarily report what fits with the “required narrative.”
1.2.1 Simon Dolan’s Judicial Review of COVID-19 Legislation
In May 2020, UK Entrepreneur Simon Dolan launched a “Crowd Funded” legal challenge to the Government’s Coronavirus Bill[4]. This resulted in a 74-page document which highlighted many contradictions and problems in the way the government acted[5] – for example, in paragraph 2.13, it is noted:
As a result, I note that at no stage were any proposals for lockdown laws placed before MPs or peers to scrutinise or debate.
This alone is unlawful in a democracy. As of writing this document, the Judicial Review was denied, but an appeal is pending.
1.2.2 “People’s Brexit” Judicial Review of COVID-19 Legislation
The People’s Brexit group also raised funds for a judicial review[6] and stated, on 01 Jun 2020:
For those concerned that we are somehow duplicating the great effort of Simon Dolan, please be assured that we are not and we are actually extending beyond it with our intent to ban testing and tracing. Our main legal challenge is based on the fact that The Coronavirus Act 2020 defines ‘coronavirus’ as being ‘covid-19’ but as the Koch’s Postulates have not been followed at all, it cannot be recognised and proven to be a disease or virus legally, medically or scientifically.
This also has the follow on effect that it is not possible to test for what you have not isolated. Further only ‘gold standard’ tests should be used for diagnostics. We are also challenging the Government over the fact that they have not followed the established procedures regarding Pandemics on a National or International basis.
This document explores some of the evidence they refer to.
2. Evidence of Fraud
2.1 Isolation of the Virus
Isolation of the dangerous/infectious agent is the central pillar on which the consensus “COVID-19” narrative is based. However, there are very good reasons to question whether this virus has ever been accurately identified. On 24 July 2020, I submitted a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) to Public Health England (PHE), thus[7].
Dear Public Health England,
I would like to see:
All records in the possession, custody or control of Public Health England describing the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus, directly from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the patient sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material (i.e. monkey kidney cells aka vero cells; liver cancer cells).
Please note that I am using “isolation” in the every-day sense of the word: the act of separating a thing(s) from everything else. I am not requesting records where “isolation of SARS-COV-2” refers *instead* to:
- the culturing of something, or
- the performance of an amplification test (i.e. a PCR test), or
- the sequencing of something.
Please also note that my request is not limited to records that were authored by the PHE or that pertain to work done by the PHE. My request includes any sort of record, for example (but not limited to) any published peer-reviewed study that the PHE has downloaded or printed.
Please provide enough information about each record so that I may identify and access each record with certainty (i.e. title, author(s), date, journal, where the public may access it).”
Yours faithfully,
Andrew Johnson
PHE responded on 20 August 2020:
Thank you for your email dated 24 July 2020. In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), I can confirm that Public Health England (PHE) does not hold the information you have specified.
Response:
PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way suggested by your request.
Under section 16 of the Act, public authorities have a duty to provide advice and
assistance. I have signposted you to the below links which contain information on
taking COVID-19 swabs.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-guidance-for-taking-swab-
samples
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/types-and-uses-of-coronavirus-covid-
19-tests/types-and-uses-of-coronavirus-covid-19-tests
Additionally, the below publication contains some information on virus isolation:
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-
7917.ES.2020.25.32.2001483
If you have any queries regarding the information that has been supplied to you,
please refer your query to in writing in the first instance. If you remain dissatisfied
and would like to request an internal review, then please contact us at the address
above or by emailing xxx@xxx.xxx.xx.
Considering the consequences to this country’s people, economy and way of life, it is absolutely incredible to learn that Public Health England has no documented independent evidence of its own that this virus has been properly isolated and properly identified.
2.1.1 Symptoms
As is commonly stated, COVID-19 (allegedly caused by SARS-COV2) has no particularly unusual symptoms[8] – just a high temperature and a persistent “dry cough” – so COVID-19 cannot be directly identified from its symptoms. Some people have (unsurprisingly) reported experiencing COVID-19 symptoms in the winter (2019) months before the alleged outbreak – which is perfectly in line with the normal pattern of flu-like illnesses increasing in frequency during the winter and early spring months.
2.1.2 UK Government Assessment of Roche Ltd Coronavirus LightMix® Modular SARS and Wuhan CoV E-gene assay
As an example of problems with one of the procedures assessed by PHE, described in a document dated 24 Apr 2020, “Rapid assessment of the Roche Ltd, Coronavirus LightMix® Modular SARS and Wuhan CoV E-gene assay[9],” we can read on Page 3:
The assay utilises a real-time technology to amplify and detect 76 bp long fragment from a conserved region in the E gene is detected with FAM-labelled hydrolysis probes (530 channel). This assay will detect SARS and Wuhan 2019 CoV pneumonia virus as well as other members of the Sarbecovirus sub-genus. The assay is designed not to cross-react with common human respiratory Coronaviruses; NL63, 229E, HKU, OC43 or MERS.
Another test described in another document “CareGeneN-COV RT-PCR-Kit” also talks about a “1st screening” for “Sarbecoviruses, including SARS-1, MERS and SARS-CoV-2.,” and then it talks about one specific gene being used for SARS-Cov-2 detection. Again, the test only detects a gene sequence which is allegedly contained in this virus – it does not detect the “whole” virus directly.
What guarantees are there that kits in use outside of a laboratory environment are truly reliable enough to be used to determine the course of people’s lives?
2.1.3 Other “Rapid” COVID Test Assessments
Other documents posted on GOV.UK[10] under a heading “COVID-19: PHE laboratory assessments of molecular tests” all have titles including the word “Rapid.” Considering the effects these tests can have on the course of someone’s life, the word “rapid” does not seem appropriate.
2.2 Worthless Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Testing
The current narrative – including the counting of cases of infection and the counting of deaths is all based on RT-PCR testing (normally abbreviated to “PCR Test”).
This then brings up an associated possibility in that diagnoses become so oriented towards COVID-19 that other more serious problems a patient has could be overlooked or missed. Such a situation was discussed in a letter to “The Lancet” titled “Covert COVID-19 and false-positive dengue serology in Singapore,” published 4 Mar 2020.[11] Additionally, The President of Tanzania, John Magufuli intervened in the country’s initial use of COVID-19 testing kits and found that even though a Pawpaw fruit was swabbed from the flesh inside, it tested positive and so did a goat[12]! He described the findings in an address[13].
Please consider the following points about this test – and the use of the technique in general.
- According to the inventor of the technique, Nobel Prize Winner Kary B Mullis, PCR cannot be totally accurate and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”[14]
- Information regarding one particular US Test kit states:[15] “This product is intended for the detection of 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment.”
- Jim Huggett of the University of Surrey wrote, in a letter to the BMJ on 6 May 2020[16]: “The uncertainty of test reliability in the COVID19 pandemic has highlighted the imperative of standardisation in diagnostic test development, it must be part and parcel of the global response, not only for the current pandemic but also setting a precedent for novel emerging pathogens”.
- In a “Practice Pointer” called “Interpreting a covid-19 test result” on the BMJ website, we can read:[17] “How accurate are test results? No test gives a 100% accurate result; tests need to be evaluated to determine their sensitivity and specificity, ideally by comparison with a “gold standard.” The lack of such a clear-cut “gold-standard” for covid-19 testing makes evaluation of test accuracy challenging.”
The exact details (or “protocols”) of how a PCR test is completed in different countries vary slightly. This is explained in a video[18] by Dr Andrew Kaufman, who is a psychiatrist with a B.S. (from M.I.T.) in Molecular Biology.[19] He illustrates how a SARS-COV2 PCR test protocol used by the Louis Pasteur Institute (Paris)[20] could trigger a false positive/match for the presence of virus because that protocol employs one “primer sequence” which precisely matches a sequence in Human Chromosome 8[21]. Dr Kaufman concludes:
There is a 100% error rate with this test.
Considering the vast consequences that the alleged virus pandemic has caused, it is almost incomprehensible to have to accept that the testing being used either does not work at all, or has such a low reliability that it is worthless! Please note, the data here, when studied, speak for themselves – and are not affected by who Dr Kaufman might be associated with. Also, it is worth noting a similar scenario – a commonly used HIV test can trigger a false-positive result in pregnant women[22].
In all of this, one should also consider the commercial interests in a now vastly expanded PCR test kit market[23].
Please consider that, with current proposals for “Track and Trace” and similar methods that are in use in the UK and around the world, someone’s fate and livelihood can be decided, essentially, on the “roll of a dice.” Not only that, but these tests, even if it is argued they can detect the “real” virus accurately, DO NOT determine whether the person is a health risk to anyone else. That part is simply a “procedural assumption” and it is not based on any science, nor is the judgement based on any additional data. This is a contravention of Human Rights (see section 4) and it is utterly unacceptable and must be reversed!
2.3 Pandemic Projections
Dr Neil Ferguson (former UK Pandemic Advisor), who is largely responsible for triggering the lockdown measures – ignored lockdown so he could spend time with his girlfriend[24]. This means he did not consider the virus a real threat. Ferguson’s model, used by the government, has proved totally inaccurate and according to code reviews of his software, it had serious flaws[25]. The fact that the figures have proved inaccurate should have come as no surprise to those who made themselves aware of Neil Ferguson’s track record.[26]
2.4 PHE Was Told by ACDP that COVID-19 Was Not “High Consequence”
A 19 Mar 2020 posting on Gov.UK, reads as follows[27]:
As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.
The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.
More recently, I have learned that on 13 March 2020, PHE was sent a letter by Professor Tom Evans[28], who was chairman of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP), in which he stated.
I am writing as Chair of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP). The committee discussed today the classification of COVID-19 as a high consequence infectious disease. The unanimous view of the committee was that this infection should NOT be classified as a HCID.
A draft copy of the minutes of a COVID -19 Teleconference meeting, held on Friday 13th March, 11:00 – 12:00am has also become available[29].
2.5 Evidence that COVID-19 is not a “Dangerous Virus”
Measures that have been taken by the British Government (and other governments) assumed that we have been dealing with a “deadly virus” (as we will see, further below). The actual facts seem to be that it is only fatal to people who are already ill or elderly or both. Younger, healthier people are either unaffected, don’t fall seriously ill or recover after some illness.
In the UK, both Prince Charles (Windsor or Sax-Coburg)[30] – himself now in the “vulnerable” over 70’s age group – and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson have recovered from their COVID-19 infections. Johnson did not have a lengthy stay in hospital, was never on a ventilator and is reported to have gone to his residence, not into isolation[31]. While on the subject of politicians, we can note that Scottish Health Chief Catherine Calderwood, decided to travel to her holiday home and not stay in “self-isolation” in early April 2020[32]. In the USA, prominent figures[33] including New York Mayor Bill De Blasio[34] and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot[35] have also ignored “lockdown” rules, for their own non-essential activities.
Another high-profile “victim,” Hollywood Actor Tom Hanks[36] was “not even sick”. In a 14 Mar 2020 Daily Mail story, Arsenal football boss, Mikel Arteta[37], who self-isolated after testing positive for COVID-19 was described by his wife thus: “Some temperatures, some headaches but that’s it. That’s his experience. My kids and I are perfectly well.” His symptoms were therefore no different to an ordinary cold or mild flu.
The above evidence is a close match to what Dr Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Adviser to the UK Government) said on 11/5/2020.[38]
The great majority of the population won’t die from this. A proportion of the population won’t get the virus at all. Of those who get symptoms – 80% are mild or moderate. Even the very highest risk groups, the great majority, if they catch this virus, will not die.
2.6 Recording and Reporting of COVID-19 Deaths
2.6.1 UK – Changes Made to Reporting Methods
A UK Government document “Guidance for doctors completing Medical Certificates of Cause of Death in England and Wales (For Use During The Emergency Period Only)” explains in section 4.1 [39](emphasis added) :
“The MCCD is set out in two parts, in accordance with World Health Organisation (WHO) recommendations in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD). You are asked to start with the immediate, direct cause of death on line Ia, then to go back through the sequence of events or conditions that led to death on subsequent lines, until you reach the one that started the fatal sequence. If the certificate has been completed properly, the condition on the lowest completed line of part I will have caused all of the conditions on the lines above it. This initiating condition, on the lowest line of part I will usually be selected as the underlying cause of death, following the ICD coding rules. WHO defines the underlying cause of death as “a)the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or b) the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury”. From a public health point of view, preventing this first disease or injury will result in the greatest health gain.”
They also state
“You should also enter any other diseases, injuries, conditions, or events that contributed to the death, but were not part of the direct sequence, in part two of the certificate. The conditions mentioned in part two must be known or suspected to have contributed to the death, not merely be other conditions which were present at the time.”
It then goes on to show some example death certificates with the first one being COVID-19 as the underlying cause as it is mentioned in the “lowest completed line”. So that particular example would be a death caused by COVID-19 and this would most likely be used in the COVID-19 death rate as per section 4.1
“Most routine mortality statistics are based on the underlying cause. Underlying cause statistics are widely used to determine priorities for health service and public health programmes and for resource allocation. Remember that the underlying cause may be a longstanding, chronic disease or disorder that predisposed the patient to later fatal complications.”
However a spreadsheet on ONS’s website states[40] (emphasis added):
Because of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, our regular weekly deaths release now provides a separate breakdown of the numbers of deaths involving COVID-19. That is, where COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, including in combination with other health conditions. Previously, the number of deaths with an underlying cause of respiratory disease was published a week behind the current week. These will now be published for the current week and revised the following week.”
We can also see a change in the way UK deaths are counted, thus:
From 31 March 2020 these figures also show the number of deaths involving Coronavirus (COVID-19), based on any mention of COVID-19 on the death certificate.”
Further information on a page “Deaths involving COVID-19, England and Wales: deaths occurring in March 2020” on the ONS website is worth considering, when assessing the figures[41]:
“Between 1 and 31 March 2020, there were 47,358 deaths that occurred in England and Wales and were registered by 6 April 2020. Of these, 8% involved the coronavirus (COVID-19) (3,912 deaths). The doctor certifying a death can list all causes in the chain of events that led to the death and pre-existing conditions that may have contributed to the death. Using this information, we determine an underlying cause of death. More information on this process can be found in our user guide. In the majority of cases (3,372 deaths, 86%) when COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate, it was found to be the underlying cause of death.
Our definition of COVID-19 includes some cases where the certifying doctor suspected the death involved COVID-19 but was not certain, for example, because no test was done. Of the 3,372 deaths with an underlying cause of COVID-19, 38 (1%) were classified as “suspected” COVID-19. Looking at all mentions, “suspected” COVID-19 was recorded on 1% of all deaths involving COVID-19.”
In section 6 they state the following (bold parts emphasis added):
“Of the 3,912 deaths that occurred in March 2020 involving COVID-19, 3,563 (91%) had at least one pre-existing condition, while 349 (9%) had none. The mean number of pre-existing conditions was 2.7.
The most common main pre-existing condition was ischaemic heart diseases, with 541 deaths (14% of all deaths involving COVID-19). This may in part explain the decrease in deaths resulting from ischaemic heart diseases in March 2020, but this requires further analysis. Pneumonia, dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were all in the top five most common pre-existing conditions.”
In the final emboldened sentence above, it seems the ONS has acknowledged the anomalies in the data that question the validity of COVID-19 as the underlying cause.
Assuming Dr Chris Whitty’s statement that “most people who get the virus will not die from it” was accurate, this would explain why there was a political – rather than medical – motivation to change the way the COVID-19 related death figures were recorded and reported, to ensure the “pandemic” was responsible for the deaths of many more people than it actually was. This is fraud.
2.7 Reporting Of COVID Deaths in Other Countries
A Bloomberg Headline, dated 18 Mar 2020 reads[42] “99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says“
The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s Coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.
Similarly, a Daily Telegraph Article from 23 Mar 2020 reads[43]:
“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the Coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the Coronavirus.”
On 25 Apr 2020, Italian MP Vittorio Sgarbi passionately stated in parliament that Italians had been lied to about the figures and that “we must be united against dictatorships and united in truth. Let us not make this the House of lies.”[44] He talked about “false numbers that are given to terrorize the Italians.” This mirrors what seems to have happened in the UK, where the effects of the alleged pandemic were felt a few days or weeks later than in Italy.
2.8 Causes of Death Misattributed to COVID-19
By early May 2020, many reports had emerged on Social Media Platforms of death certificates being written with a cause of “COVID-19” even when the person died of something else. One collection of about 150 accounts shows this clearly[45]. It also shows a deeply disturbing pattern of patients being badly treated – even to the point of deaths being caused by inappropriate treatments.
From personal experience My aunt was tested 3 times in the hospital for Coronavlrus, before being released home. She passed less than a week after that. Her death certificate says cause of death Covid—19 Her funeral was today. No one was allowed to attend.
Careful analysis seems to show that a proportion of excess deaths are being caused by lockdown measures.[46]
2.9 Conflicts of Interest – UK Government Minister and Advisers
2.9.1 Vaccine Impact Modelling Group
Prof Neil Ferguson has been involved with generating projected figures of COVID-19 infection and mortality[47]. Ferguson is on the management team of the “Vaccine Impact Modelling Consortium.” This group is overseen or even funded by the BMGF – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation[48].
In the normal course of things, where experts are advising government on matters, conflicts of interest are meant to be disclosed. Bill Gates (who has no medical qualifications or training) implied in a BBC interview that he treats mass vaccination, and possibly tracking to whom these vaccinations have been administered, as a “business interest.” It appears Professor Ferguson is also involved in this “interest.” I am therefore pointing this out as a possible serious “conflict of interest.” Further issues relating to conflicts of interest in relation to vaccination programmes and COVID-19 response plans were discussed by Vanessa Beeley, Brian Gerrish and Mike Robinson in a 15 Apr 2020 independent “UK Column” news broadcast. [49]
2.9.2 SAGE and Whitty – A Further Conflict of Interest?
Prof. Chris Whitty is the UK’s Chief Medical Officer[50] and a 4 Mar 2020 Guardian article titled “Prof Chris Whitty: the expert we need in the Coronavirus crisis”[51] reports:
In 2008, he was awarded $40m (£31m) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for malaria research in Africa. A year later, Whitty, a doctor and epidemiologist (a scientist who studies the pattern of diseases), was appointed chief scientific adviser to the Department for International Development (DfID).
Prof Whitty is also part of the UK’s SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) Committee[52] which has made recommendations about the duration of the UK’s “COVID-19” lockdown. Some people have expressed concern about the intention to keep some of SAGE’s activities secret[53]. We will examine a possible reason for this intention in section 3.1.
2.9.3 UK Secretary of State for Health – Matthew Hancock – More Conflict of Interest?
We can additionally note a post and photograph from Mr Hancock’s “Facebook” profile from 24 Jan 2019[54], with the caption “Terrific to meet Bill.Gates at #wef19 today to discuss the importance of tackling antimicrobial resistance at the global level”: (The WEF is the World Economic Forum[55])
It is also worth noting other facts about Mr Hancock, which Vanessa Beeley has written about in her UK Column article[56].Mr Hancock has ties to a company called Babylon Healthcare Services[57] – in particular promoting an app called “GP At Hand” to the NHS[58]. Another government advisor, Dominic Cummings, is also linked to Babylon[59]. It has not escaped many people’s attention that GP’s have, as part of “COVID” measures, vastly increased their use of telephone or “remote” appointments.
3. Acts of Domestic Terrorism
The UK Terrorism Act[60] states
Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights 19 October 2005 vs A New Law Proposal MUST READ & TAKE ACTION (link).
‘Article 6 – Consent’
‘1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice’.
A New Law Proposal MUST READ & TAKE ACTION (link).
‘If there is one document you should read this year, it’s this one’.
‘“Changes to human medicine regulations to support the roll-out of COVID vaccines”’
‘This was published on the 28th August 2020’.
‘What was conspiracy theory only few months ago, is now here, in an official government publication, and it’s time to take precise action and stop this proposal’
‘We received many messages from people saying they are having difficulties sharing this on social media’.
‘Interestingly we noticed most of the traffic to the petition page, is coming from WhatsApp, bypassing all social media algorithms’.
‘Our site is also blocked in a number of countries, Including Canada, South Korea, UAE’.
The Evidence Keeps Piling Up: Lockdowns Don’t Work (link).
‘The toll lockdowns have taken on human life and human rights has been incalculable. Increases in child abuse, suicide, and even heart attacks, all appear to be a feature of mandatory stay-at-home orders issued by politicians who now rule by decree without any legislative or democratic due process’.
‘And then, of course, there is the economic toll on employment, and which will feed negative impacts into the longer term. The economic burden has fallen the most on the young, and on working class families where earners are least able to work from home’.
‘These measures also have made a mockery of basic human rights while essentially expropriating private property. Mom-and-pop business owners were told to shut their doors indefinitely, or face arrest. The unemployed were told it was now illegal to work for a living if their careers were deemed “non-essential.” Police officers have beaten citizens for not “social distancing” while mothers are manhandled by cops for attempting to use playground equipment’.
‘This was all done because some politicians and bureaucrats—who were in no danger of losing their large paychecks—decided it was a great idea to carry out a bizarre and risky experiment: forcing large swaths of the population to stay at home in the name of preventing the spread of disease’.
‘An Experiment Concocted by Governments’
‘Indeed, politicians have long dreamed of forcing people into isolation en masse. But it was most recently revived during the George W. Bush administration. As The New York Times reported in April,
Fourteen years ago, two federal government doctors, Richard Hatchett and Carter Mecher, met with a colleague at a burger joint in suburban Washington for a final review of a proposal they knew would be treated like a piñata: telling Americans to stay home from work and school the next time the country was hit by a deadly pandemic’.
‘Drs. Hatchett and Mecher were proposing … that Americans in some places might have to turn back to an approach, self-isolation, first widely employed in the Middle Ages’.
‘How that idea — born out of a request by President George W. Bush to ensure the nation was better prepared for the next contagious disease outbreak — became the heart of the national playbook for responding to a pandemic is one of the untold stories of the coronavirus crisis.
The concept of social distancing is now intimately familiar to almost everyone. But as it first made its way through the federal bureaucracy in 2006 and 2007, it was viewed as impractical, unnecessary and politically infeasible’.
‘Lockdowns Don’t Work’
‘And why was it considered impractical and unnecessary? There is more than one reason, but one major reason is that lockdowns have never been shown to be particularly effective. And this lack of success in containment must also be weighed with the very real costs of forced isolation. This was explained in a 2006 paper in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism called “Disease Mitigation Measures in the Control of Pandemic Influenza” by Thomas V. Inglesby, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, Tara O’Toole, and D. A. Henderson. The authors conclude:’
‘There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods in order to slow the spread of influenza. A World Health Organization (WHO) Writing Group, after reviewing the literature and considering contemporary international experience, concluded that “forced isolation and quarantine are ineffective and impractical.” Despite this recommendation by experts, mandatory large-scale quarantine continues to be considered as an option by some authorities and government officials.
The interest in quarantine reflects the views and conditions prevalent more than 50 years ago, when much less was known about the epidemiology of infectious diseases and when there was far less international and domestic travel in a less densely populated world. It is difficult to identify circumstances in the past half-century when large-scale quarantine has been effectively used in the control of any disease. The negative consequences of large-scale quarantine are so extreme (forced confinement of sick people with the well; complete restriction of movement of large populations; difficulty in getting critical supplies, medicines, and food to people inside the quarantine zone) that this mitigation measure should be eliminated from serious consideration’.
‘Not surprisingly, then, it’s now becoming apparent that lockdowns don’t work when actually tried. Earlier this month, for example, Donald Luskin noted in The Wall Street Journal:’
‘Measuring from the start of the year to each state’s point of maximum lockdown—which range from April 5 to April 18—it turns out that lockdowns correlated with a greater spread of the virus. States with longer, stricter lockdowns also had larger Covid outbreaks. The five places with the harshest lockdowns—the District of Columbia, New York, Michigan, New Jersey and Massachusetts—had the heaviest caseloads’.
‘Basically, Luskin searched for a clear correlation between lockdowns and better health outcomes in relation to Covid-19. He found none. He continues:’
‘It could be that strict lockdowns were imposed as a response to already severe outbreaks. But the surprising negative correlation, while statistically weak, persists even when excluding states with the heaviest caseloads. And it makes no difference if the analysis includes other potential explanatory factors such as population density, age, ethnicity, prevalence of nursing homes, general health or temperature. The only factor that seems to make a demonstrable difference is the intensity of mass-transit use’.
‘We ran the experiment a second time to observe the effects on caseloads of the reopening that began in mid-April. We used the same methodology, but started from each state’s peak of lockdown and extended to July 31. Confirming the first experiment, there was a tendency (though fairly weak) for states that opened up the most to have the lightest caseloads. The states that had the big summer flare-ups in the so-called “Sunbelt second wave”—Arizona, California, Florida and Texas—are by no means the most opened up, politicized headlines notwithstanding’.
‘… [T]here’s no escaping the evidence that, at minimum, heavy lockdowns were no more effective than light ones, and that opening up a lot was no more harmful than opening up a little. So where’s the science that would justify the heavy lockdowns many public-health officials are still demanding?’
‘This is just the most recent of many studies of this sort’.
‘A July study published by The Lancet concluded: “The authors identified a negative association between the number of days to any lockdown and the total reported cases per million, where a longer time prior to implementation of any lockdown was associated with a lower number of detected cases per million.”’
‘In April, TJ Rogers looked at “a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown” and found “The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)”’
‘In May, Elaine He at Bloomberg showed ““…there’s little correlation between the severity of a nation’s restrictions and whether it managed to curb excess fatalities…”’
‘In an August 1 Study, also published by The Lancet, the authors concluded “Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.”’
‘A June study published in Advance by Stefan Homburg and Christof Kuhbandner found the data “strongly suggests,” the UK lockdown was both superfluous (it did not prevent an otherwise explosive behavior of the spread of the coronavirus) and ineffective (it did not slow down the death growth rate visibly)’.
‘In fact, the overall trend of infection and death appears to be remarkably similar across many jurisdictions regardless of what non -pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are taken by policymakers.
In a paper published with the National Bureau of Economic Research, authors Andew Atkeson, et al found Covid-19 deaths followed a similar pattern “virtually everywhere in the world”and that “Failing to account for this familiar pattern risks overstating the importance of policy mandated NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions] for shaping the progression of this deadly pandemic.”’
‘Along these lines, Simon Wood, examined the progression of the disease in the United Kingdom and in Sweden and found the data strongly suggest that the decline in infections in England and Wales began before full lockdown, and that community infections, unlike deaths, were probably at a low level well before lockdown was eased. Furthermore, such a scenario would be consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly after the UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of full lockdown’.
‘Is the Pro-Lockdown Data Good Enough to Justify Massive Human Rights Violations?’
‘Extraordinary measures require extraordinary evidence. And the burden of proof is on those who seek to use the coercive power of the state to force people into their homes, cripple the economy, and abolish countless basic freedoms for the duration. Have the advocates for lockdowns made their case? It’s hard to see how they have. For one, advocates for lockdowns need to present obvious and overwhelming evidence that lockdowns bring big benefits far in excess of the “no lockdown approach.” They have not done so. Moreover, they have no shown that a lack of lockdowns is anywhere as dangerous as they have claimed in the name of pushing lockdowns to begin with. We can already see what the “no lockdown scenario” looks like. It looks like Sweden, and that’s a better outcome than many pro-lockdown regimes can claim. Governments are nonetheless likely to continue claiming their lockdowns worked. In ancient days, a witch doctor might perform a rain dance on Tuesday, and claim credit when it rains on Wednesday. Lockdowns are increasingly looking like the modern equivalent of a rain dance’.
The jury is in on Hydroxychloroquine – ‘it saves lives’: Rowan Dean (link).
This is nothing less than a crime against humanity and these opponents of HCQ need to be investigated with a view to putting them on trial in the style of the Nuremberg trials.
1000s Of Cases But Zero Hospitalizations In Colleges: Good News But States Force Draconian Lockdowns (link).
‘There is not a single hospitalization among them. How is this an emergency situation? If anything, the fact that there are so many cases is a blessing, because, with such a young population, these cases are a de facto vaccine, creating herd immunity without danger’
Most Americans Think The Government Is Corrupt (link).
This time the majority is not wrong.
Over 1,000 HS Football Games Already Played With No Covid Spread (link).
‘If kids can play football, voters can go to the ballot box in person’
The Richie Allen Show – Wednesday September 9th 2020 Richie is joined by Dr. Marcus De Brun and Jon Kirby (link).
‘According to the Irish Sun newspaper; “An outspoken GP who quit the medical council over the State’s handling of nursing homes during the Covid-19 pandemic is now under investigation by the same body. Dr Marcus De Brun was reported after an appearance at a recent protest.” Dr. De brun sets the story straight on The Richie Allen Show’.
‘Jon Kirby is an English businessman living in Stockholm. Jon’s Twitter video, where he demonstrated a vibrant, lockdown free Sweden, went viral. He tells Richie the truth about Sweden, how it didn’t lockdown and yet didn’t have more deaths per capita, than any other country. Don’t miss this’.
Mile Markers of Tyranny: Losing Our Freedoms on the Road from 9/11 to COVID-19 (link).
‘Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, press, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more have become casualties in the government’s ongoing war on the American people. In the process, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, denied due process, and killed.
What the past 20 years have proven is that the U.S. government poses a greater threat to our individual and collective freedoms and national security than any terrorist, foreign threat or pandemic’.
paulthepaperbear 