Accepting people want to accept the scamdemic is the hardest thing of 2020 to accept but we must

2020 has permanently altered how we will live our lives. Life was never normal, most being constructs we are programmed to enjoy. The two week holiday, the weekend trip, the local restaurant, the box-set, the new BBC drama. Never a shortage of people telling you what is good and what to enjoy.

When the pandemic was first announced I took it extremely seriously, as I had been hearing about Covid-19 on alternative media for some time before. Indeed, I met my friend who had been working at a Chinese bank - he nearly died in hospital with the symptoms of Covid and we were shortly ill after I met him. I bought vitamins, Chaga tea, a nebuliser, found a coronavirus frequency zapper on YouTube. I read into it, in a lot of depth. Being that analysing data is what I do, the first source was to look at the World Health Organisation COVID situation reports. Something didn't add up. I knew that the NHS records HRG codes which maps to clinical diagnosis and treatments. It is highly probable each country maps these to WHO codes which are then used for their reporting and analysis.

In short, the WHO would not have been caught napping, and will have all manner of systems available to pinpoint and highlight variances and trends as the COVID-19 pandemic arose. They are funded by the Bill Gates Foundation, given that I work with Microsoft data technology and Oracle, there is little doubt they had the expertise to provide the right data at the right levels almost immediately. It also surprised me that they hadn't got their heads around what cases versus positive tests versus hospitalisations.

Much has been made of the "Swedish" approach, and many pro-lockdown zealots claimed that Sweden hadn't done as well as other countries. Excellent work has shown that once all factors are pulled into consideration - Sweden has outperformed many other pro-lockdown European nations. As a quick example, you will see that Sweden's demographics has a higher aged population proportion than others.

If you are going to read this without spitting venom - I am not a "covid-denier". I firmly believe, that with the right team and data if I worked on a reporting analytical solution on pandemics - most of the myths around Covid would be eradicated. Furthermore, it would be easier to focus on the right solutions to the problem at hand.

The burden of proof?

The most incredible thing when talking with most people is that they can easily adopt a psychopathic approach to things they aren't trained to understand. They have zero interest in listening to anything you say because they want to watch the news and be hand-fed it on a newspaper. It seems doubtful most people have the attention span to complete an article these days either. They expect you to prove to them that something isn't correct because they are too lazy to look into it for themselves.

2020 has reached the point of absurdity in the lengths people will go to simply follow the guidelines. Never for one second, did I think I would be able to go into supermarkets and use public transport wearing a riot helmet with visor and grill, barely getting a second-glance.

Similarly, I can go for a walk in the forest and see people out walking their dogs in masks. Other times I see one partner wearing a mask, holding hands, whilst the other partner has no mask on. Then there are parents who mask their kids despite the prevalence of covid in kids being almost zero.

So I want to quickly cover some of the nonsensical propositions put across by imbeciles during this scamdemic. Just before doing this, one key thing - these people;

  • Have zero ability to connect dots - they are guided from one mainstream problem to the next and reminded not to think.
  • Believe everything in the newspapers.
  • Can't imagine why the newspaper would lie.
  • Seem to think there has to be evidence of a grand conspiracy before they can entertain the idea it may not be incorrect.
  • Forget that a story in a newspaper - typically an account of an event is always anecdotal. It is rarely the case that a news article will truly investigate all angles.

My ultimate stance on Covid and government

When reading this post, it may read as a churlish rebuke of anybody questioning Covid. It isn't. My stance is that we have to, as a society, be far better equipped to be able to put things in perspective, act from a position of knowledge and certainty (or as close to certain as we can) to balance risks and benefits. What has come from Covid, is that there is far less certainty in most things than we can ever imagine. One simple example.

If there is so much ambiguity on what is a covid death versus an associated covid death, what does this mean for historical flu death figures?

Another really important question that seems not to be solved in the slightest - are all other deaths and harms during this period less important than Covid? There hasn't been any balance to this; indeed, we find many charities are funded by pharmaceutical companies and government. We find the newspapers have received huge advertising budgets on Covid and have found it within themselves to produce a "coronavirus" section for months. Nobody wants anybody to die, yet people are screaming and yelling about Covid worrying themselves to death whilst jumping into the path of oncoming traffic to avoid catching Covid.

Shattering common mistruths on Covid-19

Why would the data be incorrect?

Something that those not having worked in finance will likely never understand - nobody fakes numbers they report to the regulators in finance. Those doing so risk jail and a lifetime of woe. Does this mean fraud does not happen? Of course not, but a key point to explain is that the level of quality in understanding fraud in finance just doesn't seem to be at the same level in other industries.

When I was asked, why national agencies, providing covid data to the government would fake the numbers. Well, there are plenty of examples of under-reporting and I can give a simple example.

Whilst working for a hospital, I was asked to produce reports on Accident and Emergency wait times. There was a new government initiative. Upon investigation, it was clear that the staff were not recording accurate times for A&E simply because they hadn't needed to record that data in that way before. When having an incomplete set of data, and a choice of fields to use - what would you choose to report to the central authority?

Those outside of technology have little understanding about how complicated data capture, retrieval and analysis is. They take everything at face value.

But the newspapers are reporting a high number of daily cases

Deep breath. It is estimated, if it is to be believed that the UK is carrying out up to 275k to 300k tests a day. These tests are the PCR-RT tests which its inventor Kary Mullis (Nobel Peace Price Winner) stated should never be used for detecting viral infection. Dominic Raab when interviewed and asked about testing arrivals at airports using tests - he explained they have a 7% false positive rate. In addition to this, there are studies reporting that poor laboratory testing is leading to false positives (Surrey University).

Here is a screenshot of the UK government website summarising covid stats. I am not going to pour over the data in detail and cover the many inconsistencies in it appears to offer. One glaring concern is the "Deaths within 28 days of positive test". Some patients are unfortunately in hospital for months and finally pass - are they included in the statistics, and yet many patients who are asymptomatic but then die in a car crash are classed as a covid death.

 

In addition, if we start to piece together the puzzle of other Hospital Episode activity, we will find more question marks. 
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/hospital-episode-statistics

Just using rudimentary gut feel, has 2143 patients been admitted on a daily basis purely for Covid? How does this compare with other years and other admittance?

But the death rate in 2020 is above the 5 year average according to the Office of National Statistics

This one was thrown at me by a friend and the problem is this - 

The average for the deaths is 9.4. what happens if we had 9.5 deaths in year 6? We would proclaim year 6 was higher than the 5 year average and yet indeed there were three years above the year 6 figure. That people fail to understand this is happening is boggling.

My friend who is a doctor is telling me their colleagues have never been busier (Not in the UK)

Okay, the first thing here - it is anecdotal. I am launching a platform next month which is all about turning anecdotal into evidential. The obvious point is, some doctors will be rushed off their feet and accurately explaining their situation. Without context though, it is meaningless. They will also be explained this is not like the flu - the effects of the cytokine storm - how it ravages the lungs is horrific. As awful as this is, we have to ask the treatment pathway the patient went down to arrive at hospital. We seem to have very strong suspicions that, for example in the United States, many treatments many doctors claim are evidenced as curing Covid cases have been prevented by health authorities. Is it possible that if certain treatments had been used earlier, there wouldn't be as many deaths? Why are these questions never being asked?

Why are doctors in the news always reporting how bad it is?

Again - deep breath. Anybody who follows alternative media on major social media platforms, knows one thing only - that deplatforming has occurred on an unprecedented scale. There are examples in the UK of doctors being struck off for calling this not as significant as made out. Very few doctors would dare to go on record and go against the narrative. Those who are prepared to go on record won't find the BBC welcoming them on their TV news at 6.

My friend died of Covid, my friend caught Covid and is still ill now

Without going too much into this. Unfortunately, we know that;

  • A small percentage of people are dying of Covid. 0.02%.
  • The methodology for detecting Covid is exceptionally flawed.
  • That clinical diagnosis combined with detection of covid is the better approach.
  • That all viruses can result in Viral Fatigue Syndrome.
  • That many of the symptoms of Covid are the same symptoms of other conditions and infections.
  • That many people have co-morbidities and serious health issues.

There is a bigger issue with covid proponents. That is - they are caught in the perception and marketing of Covid-19. On an anecdotal level, I have heard more deaths and suicides than I have heard of deaths of Covid - way more. This does not prove that Covid is not significant which is why we have to try and trust the figures and when we check them we find that Covid is not the biggest killer by far. As cold and uncaring as this sounds it is fact. I have heard from very trustworthy friends of doctors misdiagnosing their friends and family who died of cancer of dying with Covid.

When you tell people these kinds of examples, they refuse to believe it. Even when it is one of my best friends whose father in law died of cancer in the summer - who I have met, when I explain that this happened to somebody who I knew personally they refuse to accept it.

Why would doctors, nurses and physicians lie and not reveal the truth?

To challenge a narrative, it has to be a lie. It always has to be that there is a concerted effort for medical staff to be in a big coordinated lie for it to have any shred of credibility. This isn't how it is, but to give some examples/points which you should research for yourself;

  • Practitioners are revealing this on non-mainstream social media platforms.
  • Practitioners are worried for their careers if they speak out.
  • Accidents can happen. In the US in 2018, there were 99000 Hospital Acquired Infection related deaths.
  • In many situations, there is central authority pressure to over-diagnose during pandemics.
  • In some situations there is direct evidence that there is incentivisation to misreport.
  • Sometimes physicians err on the side of caution - big surprise there?

The real way to think of this is - there are many situations where misreporting can occur be they deliberate or honest best intentions. To flat out deny that something can never happen appears to be a fantasy. Another key thing is, we are told to follow orders from a very young age and by the time we reach employment it becomes almost unheard of to challenge authority. Many social experiments have shown how humans will do something they know is wrong because of peer pressure and authority.

Quite simply, all kinds of new practices and edicts are put upon practitioners and they follow instruction. There doesn't need to be a conspiracy.

I attach an article from RT.Com by Dr Malcolm Hendrick.

Why would members of parliament and world leaders be part of a major conspiracy to destroy Western Civilisation?

This one deserves special attention. Is it true that the entire house of parliament are MPs who suddenly cares about everybody? The simple way to settle this is to ask whether a cost-benefit analysis on the government response to covid was balanced or even disproportionate. Again - you do not need everybody to be involved in a major conspiracy. MPs are simply useful idiots reading from a script. Lobbyists push their agendas upon politicians and they go along with it. They are rarely capable of drilling into the detail and undertaking the kind of research needed to make informed decisions.

Another major issue is politicians are not expert in connecting dots, understanding unforeseen bad outcomes from their actions. Often, they only think in electoral terms. There does not need to be a parliamentary conspiracy as it can be easier to simply influence politicians by media reporting "popular opinion."

My proposition is that the combination of a global pandemic and the ease at which money was made available for governments by central banks made it incredibly easy for governments to lockdown. There is not the financial accountability for politicians to understand the harm they have done.

The media aren't biased, why would they misreport everything for so long? There are plenty of articles against what the government is doing.

By this point, most people have been beaten into submission. The person who believes everything they hear about Covid now thinks they have you on the ropes. The obvious thing is, and you have to trust this - most organisations are to some degree funded by government, big-tech and big pharma. If we assume there is no conflicts of interest, is it possible advertising revenues has gone up since Covid hit? For many years we were hearing that major newspapers were on their knees.

The most ironic facet about the media is if you read the media you will find multiple smoking guns pointing to this being a scamdemic. So many stories drop true facts which can be verified outside the media that if people were slightly more alert when reading the articles they would be able to figure out the coronavirus situation by themselves.

When watching TV news, simply by making a few notes and researching the points you will quickly find inconsistencies.

Summing up why people won't start to wake up

To categorise people in a big group doesn't help us understand. I base this on the many personal interactions with individuals not only relating to Covid but in general. Why is it that if I mention Bitcoin to most people they claim it is a scam? Yet, if I point out to them that their salaries hasn't increased and their purchasing power has declined they justify it by explaining their house value has gone up and they expect to downsize when they retire?

Balanced individuals will always create happy places or let those happy places get created for them. For some, it is that a vaccine is coming, and no matter what the lowdown on this vaccine is they won't hear any bad of it. For others, vaccines are bad and evil and even if it had a 100% success rate with no side-effects they won't take it. The only question for me is where are we going to be in the future based upon what has been enacted during 2020 and will occur as a consequence? Those claiming that lives are more important than money are willingly choosing to ignore that a lot more could have been done with;

  • Protecting the vulnerable.
  • Not wasting massive resources on testing healthy people.
  • Letting the non at risk get on with their lives.
  • Investigated the many known treatments which seems to have been banned.
  • Not enacting censorship.
  • Making sure the press are held to account.
  • Start looking at prison sentences for dereliction of duty in public office. At the parliamentary, local government, police and mayoral levels.

Writing these kinds of posts won't win new friends because either people believe in lockdowns and government overreach or they think a lot of mistakes have and are continuing to be made at the loss of liberty.

Add comment