by Steve Cook
Fort William 17/8/20
The UK Health Secretary has adjusted the country’s (quote) “over-exaggerated” CV death stats downwards by about 5000.
We are very fortunate that he has deigned to inflict on us only the exaggerated stats as opposed to the over-exaggerated ones.
How did we arrive at the happy condition of only being lied to a lot as opposed to too much?
Well, the government was caught out LYING THROUGH ITS TEETH about the death stats.
It could not cause enough deaths to justify calling this a pandemic. It tried, evidently, through the ruses such as
- HAVING NO QUARANTINE OF PEOPLE ARRIVING FROM SUPPOSEDLY HEAVILY AFFLICTED AREAS UNTIL AFTER THE PANDEMIC WAS OVER and
- RELEASING PEOPLE FROM HOSPITAL UNTESTED AND BACK INTO NURSING HOMES SO THAT THEY COULD INFECT THE VERY PEOPLE MOST LIKELY TO DIE FROM THIS FLU.
These efforts to cause enough deaths to justify lockdown and the destruction of our country fell short because the “virus” is not deadly or infectious enough for that purpose. Left to its own devices or even helped along quite a bit it would not have scared enough people into cooperating with their own national suicide.
So that left simply publishing VERY false figures.
The Health Secretary, when the public twigged it, pretended he didn’t know. How the hell could he not know? He is the ruddy Health Secretary for Christ’s sake!
So he then makes a song and dance about an “inquiry” into the matter and a few days later tries to fob us off with a minor adjustment to the figures.
He really does think the British people are gullible idiots if he thought for one second he would get away with this new episode of lying plastered over all the other lies like sticky tape over a hole in the Titanic.
A while ago an investigation in Italy revealed (from memory here) that at least 88% of the deaths reported to be from the COVID19 virus were not in fact caused by the virus despite press and government false reports to the contrary. Many governments seem to be similarly lying in a coordinated effort that tells us, in a nutshell: different governments, same puppet masters.
Amazingly, this admission of massaging the COVID death stats in the time-honoured manner usually applied to the crimes stats or unemployment figures was not regarded as newsworthy by the MSM because it buggered up their narrative. Yett there is no reason not to assume a similar or worse margin of error on the part of the UK Prime Muppet and his misbegotten crew of propagandists, knaves, scoundrels and Globalist stooges as that exposed in Italy.
The UK purported death toll is about 40K. An 88% margin of error would put the true figure at 4800. The number of cases that have “tested positive” stands at about 317 000 which makes an overall death rate of about 1.5% of those infected, with the vast majority over 70 or 80 years old!
Now that makes it a bad disease from a humanitarian perspective and scary enough if you or a loved one are very old and/or already weakened bFake stats help virus iuntimidatey some other illness but nowhere near scary enough if one is trying to frighten millions of people into cooperating in national freakin’ suicide and pretty much the annulment of democracy.
Hence the lies
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Twat Hancock, a nasty piece of work who seems unable to suppress a smile when announcing a lockdown.
If you don’t like what some of us say, especially if it’s true and doesn’t even challenge the type of information your website promotes, why invite anyone to comment?
I saw:
‘BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT’ (above) so accepting the lure of your invitation decided I would post my thoughts on the above article, but you didn’t like what I said, so didn’t publish it.
Yet among your blog’s many articles many are those explaining how the state are quick to silence any dissenting voices and proactively censor any views that challenge the accepted narrative or those who dare to question anything the government tell us, or ‘the science’. IOW: Free speech is not free unless it agrees with or promotes their accepted dogma.
By not publishing my comment (which incidentally wasn’t challenging any of this blog’s ideas or points of view), are you not being somewhat hypocritical?
All I said was that a reference to an article a writer claims he read in a local tabloid would be more convincing if he’d linked to the article or, at least named the tabloid he claims to have read it in.
I even made clear that I did not disbelieve him.