We live in a corrupted system. The way to tackle corruption is to first acknowledge it exists. Only then is it possible to come up with ways of dealing with it, but don't make the mistake of believing the system can or will uncorrupt itself.

A Sudden Change of Heart…

30 April 2021 - 9:33 pm

Today in an article entitled “Current definition of Covid deaths could distort vaccine success data, scientists warn”, we are treated to one of the most stunning displays of politically motivated statistical chicanery seen so far during this fictional pandemic.

For more than 12 months, anyone with a functioning brain has been pointing out the ridiculousness of the method used to count COVID deaths. Currently it is “death within 28 days of a positive test”, regardless of the actual cause. It has been this since the 12th August 2020 when it changed from “any death after a positive test”. After this statistical tweak, Public Health England (PHE) actually used two methods at the same time, as explained on the unironically named “Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine” website:

PHE uses two definitions of death in a person with COVID-19 in England, one broader measure and one measure reflecting current trends:

1) A death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 and either: died within 60 days of the first specimen date or died more than 60 days after the first specimen date, only if COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate

2) A death in a person with a laboratory-confirmed positive COVID-19 test and died within (equal to or less than) 28 days of the first positive specimen date.

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/public-health-england-death-data-revised/

This is allegedly for the purposes of using the 28 day definition to provide a “more accurate, and sensitive measure” and the 60 day definition for studies on the long-term effects of COVID. Nothing screams accuracy like ignoring actual evidence and using multiple definitions for something as singularly absolute and definitive as death.

If that all sounds rather muddled and unscientific, that’s because it is. The laughable idea of an organisation parading itself, dressed up in the garb of “Evidence-Based Medicine” talking in all seriousness about changing the definitions of the single most important statistic in an alleged global pandemic, that being how many deaths it is causing, is only eclipsed by today’s announcement.

In the article mentioned at the start we hear about the latest advice from the modelling sub-group of SAGE, the Government’s bought and paid for Scientists that always manage to give the right answer to the questions a tyrannical State asks of them. We’re now being told after a year of manufactured cases from tests that aren’t tests and deaths based on nothing but a timeframe and the results of those non-tests, that the “28-day measure of fatalities could give ‘inaccurate’ picture of UK epidemic as more of the population receives the jab“. Yes, you did read that correctly. All of a sudden, after using those completely flawed methods to generate all the scary numbers and hysteria to justify lockdowns and The Vaccine, it’s suddenly inaccurate.

Why is it inaccurate now, and not for the last year? Well those clever folks at SAGE will explain it (mirror) to you, in case you’re not a seasoned doublethinker. It’s because:

“it will become an increasingly inaccurate measure of the pandemic and vaccine success.”

They elaborate further if that’s not compelling enough:

“the 28-day definition was useful before widespread vaccination, because deaths in hospital within a month of a positive test were most likely due to Covid-19.”

Surprisingly honest, if rather lacking in The Science. The problem they go on to explain is:

“deaths from other causes could still show up in the daily data if they have previously tested positive for coronavirus.”

…and of course this will make it look like The Vaccine isn’t the saviour of humanity we were told it was. A senior SAGE member is quoted as saying:

“If the definition remains the same, these people would be counted as ‘vaccine failures’, whereas the vaccine prevented death from Covid, but they really died from something else. I suspect that the current definition will have to be revised at some point.”

Oh no! Not “vaccine failures”! We can’t have that now can we? What about all the money to be made by the companies a good proportion of the SAGE committee either work for or are funded by? What about getting everyone injected with cell altering mRNA or, if you’re unlucky, a chimpanzee virus? These are very important goals and we cannot have our previously manipulated and mostly fictional statistics threaten the grand plans.

It turns out that the Office for National Statistics uses yet another method to count deaths from COVID according to this article. At first glance you could be forgiven for thinking it might be a more accurate figure, given it is based on whether “coronavirus is determined by a doctor as a cause on the death certificate”. Unfortunately this third (or fourth, but who’s counting?) method is also unreliable as the cause on the death certificate need not be based on any clinical observations and can simply be assumed.

We are at a point where these methods (plural) of counting what should be the most important figure in determining if any of the measures forced on the public by the Government are proportional, make that impossible. This is of course completely intentional and now the obviously exaggerated death figures are inconvenient, the Government now wants to change the counting method, again.

A document linked to in that article titled “SPI-M-O: Consensus Statement on COVID-19” that is 7 pages long contains the word “estimate” 34 times. It also makes the claim that although the growth rate of infections “is between -4% and 0% per day”, or in other words is shrinking or at least not growing, the “SPI-M-O is not confident that R is now below 1 in any NHS England region”, or in other words the R rate (reproduction number) is not below 1, which would mean that it must be 1 or higher. Higher would mean infection rates should be growing. Hmmm. They then go on to say “Although R may still be below 1 nationally, prevalence remains high”. Ermmm, OK then.

So what is the prevalence according to the SPI-M-O? According to the document:

“The ONS community infection survey for the most recent week of the study (21st to 27th March) estimates that an average of 148,100 people had COVID-19 in the community in England”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/979625/S1180_SPI-M-O_Consensus_Statement.pdf

There are roughly 54 million people in England. 148,100 sounds like quite a big number. Here’s a statistic based on those two numbers you can check out yourself… that works out to 0.27% of the population. And that’s an estimate based on models and figures derived from a test that’s not a test, and certainly isn’t the number of people allegedly ill with COVID.

Given that SAGE has a track record of overestimating these things, especially those estimates based on “models” (yes Neil Ferguson, we’re looking at you) and even taking that figure at face value we’re talking about around a quarter of a percent of the population, not even necessarily being ill, no wonder they want to change the way they count deaths. The narrative is falling apart and the only way they can keep pushing The Vaccine is to promote it as much as possible and claim it is curing death itself. This is where we are now.