URGENT UPDATE: It turns out that the Government data on deaths within 28 days of a positive test only goes up until May 2022, so I need to revise this article.
Professor Fenton keep going after them. You are the only one who can. We are all in awe of your math/statistical abilities. For the next pandemic, we will rely only on your numbers and estimates.
Lord forgive me, but I really despise these people who propogate such crap, and who changed the rules to suit their fear agenda.
So 95% of the official covid deaths were bullshit. Sounds about right. At least 95% of everything politicians say is bullshit so the numbes add up. Great work Professor, you're my new hero!
They have definitely faked the numbers. Sadly this (ongoing) fraud only proves that the government and it's institutions cannot be trusted with anything.
The smaller the numerical value of deaths attributed to nebulous and non-specific clinical "COVID" or more likely, case designated "COVID," the less likely the COVID construct is anything other than a spurious test for sequence fragments with little clinical meaning or relevance. Other causes of death may predominate and should be investigated, as should the people instigating a 'pandemic' narrative.
I don't know why they are bothering to keep up this false narrative of Death-by-Covid! The general public appear to have completely moved on - blanked out the last 3 years completely, forgotten about the whole thing. Most people aren't interested in other people's deaths so this is only of interest to people with family and friends who have died and who have Covid stamped on the death certificate. Most people also know that granny with her COPD, type 2 diabetes and obesity didn't die from Covid, regardless of what the hospital say.
You ask is everything an illusion? I'd say most of it is, with something making people ill back end 2019 then the rest was sleight of hand. Look this way, look at that but don't look at the real tricksters who are conning us.
What is damning in your latest brilliant analysis of the official figures is that you say the glaring error might be an innocent mistake. That is jaw dropping and worrying. However, I would have thought conspiracy is more likely than cock up when it comes to Covid and is the worst of two evils.
At least in the US, the presumption of Covid. exactly as it is with influenza, is the 1st tier of differential diagnosis. No test needed. Hell we all know countless people who are sure they "had Covid" multiple times even among people that never tested or "had it" before the Plandemonium was officially "switched-on" with the PCR fraud.
per the CDC
"After evaluating you, your doctor may choose to diagnose you with flu without the need for testing based on your symptoms and his or her own clinical judgement."
So, I’m a GP. I was working in A&E through the pandemic. I have lots and lots of comments, queries and thoughts on all that has gone on.
Sticking to this article on death certificates, numbers of deaths and tests there are a few things I could add.
At the start of the pandemic there was a good deal of uncertainty. My GP colleagues weren’t sure of the symptoms of covid so death certificates were inaccurate both ways, recording covid when it wasn’t there, and not recording when it was. As experience and practice developed covid got registered more and more.
One important thing to note, as well as covid being the *only cause of death, is whether it is on part 1 of the certificate, or only on part 2. Part 1 recorded the factors hat actually result in death such as cancer, multiple trauma, heart attack. Whereas part 2 records associated factors, which is where covid is likely to be mentioned for pretty much any death in the last 3 years, including anyone with a positive test in the last month or two, as a doctor might thing that such an infection could speed the death or precipitate the major cause.
If it is possible, it would be informative to understand how many deaths certificates had covid only in part 1, not part 2, and this might be more relevant than when covid is mentioned as the only cause, as doctors will frequently mention another factor as well, including mode of dying even though this is expressly advised against.
I do have other comments more broadly! I’d love to get more into the data.
Looking back at 2020, before the Covid vaccinations were rolled out...
I was following the situation very closely, and had a BMJ response published in December 2020, in which I noted:
"To put things in perspective, consider that over the past eleven months, globally 1.64 million deaths have been attributed to COVID-19. These 1.64 million deaths must be seen in context with the 56 million deaths expected in the world annually." (Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4847/rr-16)
This is in a global population of around 7.9 billion at the time.
Even if we accept the 1.64 million deaths attributed to Covid then, likely in elderly people with comorbidities, there is no way that a global mass population vaccination response was justifiable based on these numbers.
So how did it happen? How did we end up with the insane plan to vaccinate the entire global population against a disease it was known wasn't a serious problem for most people?
A couple things I wonder about using autopsy data to comparie with death certificate numbers: (1) Autopsies would document only a subset of the causes of death. (I assume that autopsies are not routinely done in the UK.) It looks to me like autopsy data are being used to contradict death certificate data that include covid. (2) Why does covid have to be the sole cause of death to be considered an important factor? Usually my comments on your posts have been strong endorsements. Therefore I wonder what I have failed to consider here, or where my logic is wrong.
Norman, genius insights and statistical analysis. One request: please have someone completely illiterate of statistics write this for you with your help. Let them write it and conform to all their requirements. Then compare the two written products.
aka, while I think I grock what you are saying here, I am so unsure, I doubt I can pass this knowledge on to someone else. My rule is that until I can explain an idea to a hungry 10 year old in a busy McDonalds at lunch time with nothing more than a pencil and paper place mat in a way that he can restate it accurately back to me, I do not understand it well enough myself.
The definition of a covid death is ever more nonsensical than you quote.
From the ONS deaths report:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths
COVID-19 deaths are those deaths registered in England and Wales in the stated week where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate. A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID-19 based on symptoms and clinical findings; a positive test result is not required.
So classify a covid death as being due to or a contributing factor in a death all it takes is for the doctor to say “it was covid”.
Just a thought that hit me when I was looking at the numbers again,...
·
I have a comment and consideration that I'd like to share. Maybe you'll pick it up in the avalanche of data.
About the excess death numbers. Concerning, bizar etc. No debate there.
But... a good size of the deaths are still reported as Covid deaths. Either WITH or BY Covid. Thats the numbers we receive from the authorities and not just in the UK.
My thought about this: has any one ever heard of a healthy person dying of Omicron? If so, interesting, since Omicron manifests itself as a cold.
Even the number of people that die WITH Covid is very debatable. Why record this in the first place? These people probably have numerous comorbidities, why mention this one specifically?
Is it manipulation? Is it supposed to make us think that Covid really, really still is a serious matter (its not).
URGENT UPDATE: It turns out that the Government data on deaths within 28 days of a positive test only goes up until May 2022, so I need to revise this article.
Professor Fenton keep going after them. You are the only one who can. We are all in awe of your math/statistical abilities. For the next pandemic, we will rely only on your numbers and estimates.
Lord forgive me, but I really despise these people who propogate such crap, and who changed the rules to suit their fear agenda.
So 95% of the official covid deaths were bullshit. Sounds about right. At least 95% of everything politicians say is bullshit so the numbes add up. Great work Professor, you're my new hero!
They have definitely faked the numbers. Sadly this (ongoing) fraud only proves that the government and it's institutions cannot be trusted with anything.
The smaller the numerical value of deaths attributed to nebulous and non-specific clinical "COVID" or more likely, case designated "COVID," the less likely the COVID construct is anything other than a spurious test for sequence fragments with little clinical meaning or relevance. Other causes of death may predominate and should be investigated, as should the people instigating a 'pandemic' narrative.
In the private sector such poor quality would result in bankruptcy but in the government sector it results in increased funding and more control.
I don't know why they are bothering to keep up this false narrative of Death-by-Covid! The general public appear to have completely moved on - blanked out the last 3 years completely, forgotten about the whole thing. Most people aren't interested in other people's deaths so this is only of interest to people with family and friends who have died and who have Covid stamped on the death certificate. Most people also know that granny with her COPD, type 2 diabetes and obesity didn't die from Covid, regardless of what the hospital say.
You ask is everything an illusion? I'd say most of it is, with something making people ill back end 2019 then the rest was sleight of hand. Look this way, look at that but don't look at the real tricksters who are conning us.
What is damning in your latest brilliant analysis of the official figures is that you say the glaring error might be an innocent mistake. That is jaw dropping and worrying. However, I would have thought conspiracy is more likely than cock up when it comes to Covid and is the worst of two evils.
At least in the US, the presumption of Covid. exactly as it is with influenza, is the 1st tier of differential diagnosis. No test needed. Hell we all know countless people who are sure they "had Covid" multiple times even among people that never tested or "had it" before the Plandemonium was officially "switched-on" with the PCR fraud.
per the CDC
"After evaluating you, your doctor may choose to diagnose you with flu without the need for testing based on your symptoms and his or her own clinical judgement."
So, I’m a GP. I was working in A&E through the pandemic. I have lots and lots of comments, queries and thoughts on all that has gone on.
Sticking to this article on death certificates, numbers of deaths and tests there are a few things I could add.
At the start of the pandemic there was a good deal of uncertainty. My GP colleagues weren’t sure of the symptoms of covid so death certificates were inaccurate both ways, recording covid when it wasn’t there, and not recording when it was. As experience and practice developed covid got registered more and more.
One important thing to note, as well as covid being the *only cause of death, is whether it is on part 1 of the certificate, or only on part 2. Part 1 recorded the factors hat actually result in death such as cancer, multiple trauma, heart attack. Whereas part 2 records associated factors, which is where covid is likely to be mentioned for pretty much any death in the last 3 years, including anyone with a positive test in the last month or two, as a doctor might thing that such an infection could speed the death or precipitate the major cause.
If it is possible, it would be informative to understand how many deaths certificates had covid only in part 1, not part 2, and this might be more relevant than when covid is mentioned as the only cause, as doctors will frequently mention another factor as well, including mode of dying even though this is expressly advised against.
I do have other comments more broadly! I’d love to get more into the data.
Looking back at 2020, before the Covid vaccinations were rolled out...
I was following the situation very closely, and had a BMJ response published in December 2020, in which I noted:
"To put things in perspective, consider that over the past eleven months, globally 1.64 million deaths have been attributed to COVID-19. These 1.64 million deaths must be seen in context with the 56 million deaths expected in the world annually." (Link: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4847/rr-16)
This is in a global population of around 7.9 billion at the time.
Even if we accept the 1.64 million deaths attributed to Covid then, likely in elderly people with comorbidities, there is no way that a global mass population vaccination response was justifiable based on these numbers.
So how did it happen? How did we end up with the insane plan to vaccinate the entire global population against a disease it was known wasn't a serious problem for most people?
Because this guy was allowed to run amok: GatesNotes: What you need to know about the COVID-19 vaccine, 30 April 2020: https://www.gatesnotes.com/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-COVID-19-vaccine#:~:text=A%2060%20percent%20effective%20vaccine,the%20less%20effective%20vaccines%20are.
Thanks Norman. Honest mistake? ROFLMBO Sir!!!!
A couple things I wonder about using autopsy data to comparie with death certificate numbers: (1) Autopsies would document only a subset of the causes of death. (I assume that autopsies are not routinely done in the UK.) It looks to me like autopsy data are being used to contradict death certificate data that include covid. (2) Why does covid have to be the sole cause of death to be considered an important factor? Usually my comments on your posts have been strong endorsements. Therefore I wonder what I have failed to consider here, or where my logic is wrong.
Norman, genius insights and statistical analysis. One request: please have someone completely illiterate of statistics write this for you with your help. Let them write it and conform to all their requirements. Then compare the two written products.
aka, while I think I grock what you are saying here, I am so unsure, I doubt I can pass this knowledge on to someone else. My rule is that until I can explain an idea to a hungry 10 year old in a busy McDonalds at lunch time with nothing more than a pencil and paper place mat in a way that he can restate it accurately back to me, I do not understand it well enough myself.
The definition of a covid death is ever more nonsensical than you quote.
From the ONS deaths report:
Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths
COVID-19 deaths are those deaths registered in England and Wales in the stated week where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate. A doctor can certify the involvement of COVID-19 based on symptoms and clinical findings; a positive test result is not required.
So classify a covid death as being due to or a contributing factor in a death all it takes is for the doctor to say “it was covid”.
Not very scientific or medical is it?
Basically a meaningless metric now.
I posted this on John Campbells Substack as well.
Just a thought that hit me when I was looking at the numbers again,...
·
I have a comment and consideration that I'd like to share. Maybe you'll pick it up in the avalanche of data.
About the excess death numbers. Concerning, bizar etc. No debate there.
But... a good size of the deaths are still reported as Covid deaths. Either WITH or BY Covid. Thats the numbers we receive from the authorities and not just in the UK.
My thought about this: has any one ever heard of a healthy person dying of Omicron? If so, interesting, since Omicron manifests itself as a cold.
Even the number of people that die WITH Covid is very debatable. Why record this in the first place? These people probably have numerous comorbidities, why mention this one specifically?
Is it manipulation? Is it supposed to make us think that Covid really, really still is a serious matter (its not).
I'd say this might be worth investigating.