Article by Fabian Ubiquitus
Despite it being broadly exposed as a fraud, the government nevertheless persists with its misrepresentations and stock propaganda utterances as if bereft of any ideas as to what to do now that it has been found out.
The various lies, stat fiddles and so forth that fuelled what is turning out to have been perhaps the biggest and most brazen attempted fraud in history are by now all public knowledge despite the desperate efforts of the scammers’ accomplices in the MSM and the Intelligence community to keep them out of public view.
But just in case anyone still needs to catch up with the extent of the fraud that has been perpetrated and of the lies told to the nation, here follows a brief summary of how the con was done.
The game was this:
Take a bug that can on occasion be quite serious but which is generally about the same in its effect upon the vast majority (if they catch it at all) as a cold or flu, then talk it up, falsify the stats pertaining to mortalities and infections so as to create a false picture of a deadly killer epidemic cutting a swathe of carnage through the populace. Use the fear thus generated to (a) make lots of money for the pharmaceutical industry and (b) establish an authoritarian micro-controlling regime of a political-medical elite that pretty much ends democracy and liberty.
That effort now stands exposed and in the wake of its unravelling a large number of subversives who drove, aided and abetted and collaborated with this attack upon our country will be brought to account as the months unfold.
A summary of the lies exposed is as follows:
Fewer hospital beds were occupied this year than last year.
COVID deaths were a fraction of the alarming and egregiously inaccurate forecasts.
Alarming forecasts by such persons as Imperial College’s Ferguson – with a known track record of abysmally poor yet doom-mongering forecasts – were chosen BECAUSE they scared the crap out of the citizenry.
A whopping 95% (at least) of fatalities attributed to COVID had underlying or other causes.
Ways the mortality stats were tinkered with are now well known and included such things as attributing any death to COVID if the deceased person had tested positive for COVID up to a month before his or her death. The test used to “diagnose” COVID often being the discredited PCR test.
Despite the tinkering and manipulation of the COVID deaths stat, the number of Covid-19 deaths is significantly lower than the alleged but falsely high peak back in April
Latest ONS estimate shows that in the week ending November 14, new (alleged – see below) infections were already levelling off
How accurate were the Government’s grim predictions? Not very – consistently so.
For example, in a July report commissioned by Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, scientists estimated that there “could be 119,000 deaths” if a second spike coincided with a winter flu. We are nowhere near reaching that alarmist total- albeit the true COVID mortality stats would be a heck of a lot less if no manipulation if the numbers were occurring.
Moreover it has become noticeable that flu numbers are WELL down (almost as if flu is disappearing or what would in other years have been called “flu” is now being classified as “COVID”).
In fact, the so-called “second peak” seems to have passed – over the past week there has been an average of 22,287 new infections a day, down from 24,430 the week before.
But of course the new infections stats is false (see below).
In mid-September, in an effort to talk up the terror so as to justify an even more crushing lockdown, Sir Patrick made the horrific false prediction that the UK could see 50,000 new coronavirus cases a day by the middle of October unless more severe restrictions were introduced. Mercifully the restrictions, already damaging enough on so many levels, were not made even more savage – and of course we have never got anywhere near his false prediction.
What about grim the prophecies of death?
Same story. The government’s warnings simply don’t bear any relation to reality.
The “scientists” by which the government places so much store seem incapable of getting their sums or prognoses right. The experts, apparently, are not very expert – except where hoodwinking and terrifying the nation are concerned.
During the infamous ‘Halloween horror show’ press conference used by Sir Patrick and Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty to scare the populace into accepting the Government’s second lockdown, one of their slides alleged that daily Covid-19 deaths “could reach” 4,000 a day by December!
But, yet again even the fiddled mortality stats only reached a fraction of that prediction. . . In fact, the current “death rate” is significantly below almost every modelled winter scenario.
Well what about hospitals? The government keeps hinting at how they are close to full capacity. Is that true? Are they?
The answer is ‘no’. Again, not even close and at least half did not have a single Covid-19 patient.
Currently, only 13 per cent of NHS beds are occupied by patients with Covid-19. Of course, if the “with COVID19” derives from a positive result from a test such as the PCR, which is so flawed and so not up to the task set for it that NOTHING based on its results can be relied upon, the true percentage could be a lot lower than 13.
For example, in November 5, the most recent date available, there were actually 1,293 fewer patients in hospital beds than last year’s November average.
Well all right what about Intesive Care beds? If people are being struck down all over the place by a killer virus, surely they are full?
Nope.
Last week, just 1,430 people with Covid-19 were occupying beds with mechanical ventilation. And this does not necessarily mean that their need for mechanical ventilation derives from COVID19.
When the PCR test is used to diagnose COVID19, we must bear in mind that per the government’s own data the test cannot detect a live virus and per other data from a host of experts, it reads positive on remnants of DNA still in the person’s body from previous infections of a Coronavirus (the family of viruses to which COVD 19 belongs and which also includes various flu and common cold viruses). So a “positive” from the PCR test does not in fact tell us that the person is a “live” case of COVID infection.
The use if the test by the government to declare COVID “cases” is fraudulent. This means that an unknown number of people on ventilators allegedly “with” COVID do not actually have COVID. They are on the ventilators due to something but it ain’t COVID. We just don’t know how many, thanks to the severe unreliability of the PCR test (a Portugese court recently put it at 93% unreliable). It could be none, one, a hundred or all of them.
Despite the hooha surrounding the construction of the Nightingale hospitals to “deal with” the non existent national medical emergency, they were never more than 1.23 per cent full – that is, just over one bed in every one hundred beds actually had a patient in it!
Across the country, roughly 31 per cent of ICU beds are currently occupied by patients allegedly with Covid.
In fact, on November 8, the number of occupied critical beds was actually lower than the five-year average for 2015-19.
Even at the height of the first wave in the spring, the percentage of mechanical ventilation beds in existing NHS hospitals that were used never exceeded 62 per cent, according to a study by University College London.
And it does appear to be the case that in the early stages of the “outbreak”, putting patients on ventilators may have killed some of them – although doctors have learned from that early experience and they are now far better prepared to treat Covid-19, such as knowing when and when not to put patients on ventilators.
So who is Covid-19 actually killing, if anybody?
To put it simply, (and leaving aside the inaccuracy of many “positives” and the unreliability of the mortality stats) those who die of or with the virus are overwhelmingly the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions.
Of the 37,470 Covid-19 deaths recorded by NHS England up to November 18, 53.7 percent were of people aged over 80.
The average age of death with COVID is actually around 82 years old and a YEAR OLDER than the average age of death from all causes.
And there have been just 275 deaths (only 0.7 per cent of the total) of people under 40. I make that a tiny 0.008% of the population or thereabouts.
And crucially, ALMOST ALL those who are reported to have died of or with COVID19 were suffering from a pre-existing condition.
Of those who have died from coronavirus, 35,806 people (95.6 per cent of the total) had at least one pre-existing serious medical condition.
In fact, there have been just 42 deaths of people aged under 40 without a pre-existing condition. The truth of the matter that unless assisted by a serious existing condition, COVID19 is no more a killer than the common cold. Indeed if you are elderly and/or very frail, the common cold can be a killer. It is one of life’s ironies that I personally some 20 years ago had an otherwise healthy friend in his 40s who died from complications that turned into pneumonia after catching a cold.
But what do we mean by a pre-existing condition?
For sure a person’s lifestyle – their weight or general respiratory condition, and so forth – can make them more vulnerable to COVID-19, but the truth is that those who die with pre-existing conditions tend to be suffering from serious, debilitating diseases.
By way of a couple of examples, around 27 per cent of them had diabetes, while 18 per cent had dementia – both these conditions make a person extremely vulnerable to any viral infection (not just COVID19).
And what about now, are more people more dying than in the first wave?
No. The number of COVID-19 deaths (again, taking the reported figures at face value) is much lower than the peak in April.
So are more people dying now than last year? If there is a killer pandemic going on, surely they must be!
Well, no. Deaths are not far above average for this time of year.
Well, Surely more elderly people are dying than normal being as COVID19 is known to kill mainly the elderly?
Nope.
According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures for October 2020, the average death rate in the over-75s was significantly lower this year than it was last October.
All right, what about the infection rate? Isn’t it now going up?
The latest ONS estimate shows that in the week ending November 14, new infections were already levelling off: one in 80 people in England allegedly had the disease that week, compared with 1 in 85 the week before.
This of course relied heavily on the PCR test, which we know gives false positives so it is hard to know exactly WHAT is happening whilst this test is being used. But as has been pointed out by many observers, the increased amount of testing will of course produce an increase in the number of (mainly false) positives.
A key stat would be the CONTEXT of how many positives as a percentage of the number of tests being done.
Certainly, the apparent rise in the “number of cases” is not producing a commensurate rise in the number of fatalities, which suggests that the bug has become less fatal.
The tendency of the PCR tests to return false positive by the bucket load accounts for the strange phenomenon that 80% of “cases” are “asymptomatic”. Asymptomatic is government-speak for healthy.
Infections could actually be falling. Indeed some sources have maintained they began falling long ago as the disease has already peaked and only an increase in testing by using a test that returns false positives has kept the apparency of increased infections going.
Indeed, the tendency of the PCR test to register traces of remnants of the DNA from past infections suggests that what the test is registering is the fact that a great many people have already had the disease and gotten over it without realising what it was. Quite likely, it was merely taken to be a cold or “touch of the flu” considering its symptoms are cold- or flu-like and the majority of people who “catch it” – if they get any symptoms at all – get only mild common-cold-like symptoms.
But even officialdom is now coming around to admitting that “infections are in decline”: according to research published recently by scientists at Cambridge University –infection rates of Covid-19 have actually stopped growing across England.
Another factor at play here is the introduction of a new test to replace the PCR test. With a court in Portugal already declaring lockdowns and so forth based on the PCR tests unlawful due to the test’s egregious inaccuracy (you’d be far better off flipping a coin) the writing is on the wall for the caper and in an effort to avoid immanent legal challenges, lawsuits and the general loss of credibility now that the flawed nature of the test is exposed, the government had been obliged to bring in a new test.
This is the Lateral Flow Test (LFT). It has the disadvantage propaganda-wise of being a bit more accurate (we do not yet know to what degree) and so, not surprisingly, where it is being used, the rate of “positives” has suddenly dropped as much a 80%.
This is used for propaganda purposes to assert that “the lockdown is working” or some such thing, when in actual fact what is happening is that a test is being used that is a bit more reliable and the fact that the bug, if it was ever as widespread or infectious as we were told, has come and gone.
The Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) has said the reproduction (‘R’) rate – the average number of people each Covid-19 “patient” infects – had fallen to a maximum of 1.1 and could be as low as 1.0 or lower in every region of Britain.
Indeed, they claim, the R rate – the average number of people infected by somebody with the virus – has fallen to one.
If the figure is below one, the epidemic subsides; above one and it grows; and if it is one, infection rates stay the same.
Per government data, here the latest R number is estimated at 0.9 to 1 with a daily infection growth rate range of -2% to 0% as of 27 November 2020.
So despite a rate of 0% infection (at the most), most of us are currently in tier 2 and 3, with restrictions on our social and family life as bad or worse than under a lockdown! This makes no sense at all and fuels the growing impression that the current government has a screw loose
How much does the spread of infection matter when the elderly are more likely to be infected?
Well, one school believes that if left unchecked by lockdowns and so forth, the current wave of infection will tear through the elderly.
This is belied by the current affect on the elderly of the infection (see above) and of course a targeted shielding of the elderly – devoting all our energy to protecting the truly at-risk instead of shutting down an entire country full of people who aren’t – if done well, is perfectly capable of protecting them.
Moreover, the alleged infection rate is actually highest in school-age children and students – the least vulnerable demographics – and lowest among the over 70s.
In the week to November 14, for example, the infection rate among secondary school pupils was 2.03 per cent, while in those over 70 it was just 0.48 per cent and falling!
Will mass testing fix all this?
It’s hard to see how, particularly whilst the tests themselves are unreliable.
Targeted shielding of the vulnerable promises to be far more effective and a lot more cost-effective as well.
Plus it has the additional advantage of enabling the bulk of the population who are not at risk to get on with their lives.
For example, shutting down pubs to “protect people who are at risk” is about as nuts as it gets when the people who are at risk have only to not go to the pub! And the majority of the truly at risk can’t GET to the pub even if they are a mind to go because they too elderly and/or ill with other ailments!
Meanwhile, the government has put a lot of faith in Operation Moonshot – a plan to test the entire population once a week using ‘lateral flow tests’ (LFTs – see above)), which are a type of COVID-19 test that give results in only an hour. Yet their rapidity comes with a cost: they are not very reliable.
The logistics and financial costs of testing 64 million people EVERY week are also daunting, particularly at a time when government policies have thrown the country into deeper debt and suppressed production and thus the nation’s prosperity.
The government’s horrible record thus far of producing accurate stats and reliable tests does not bode well for the accuracy of the new LFTs.
But let us be generous and imagine that it gives a false positive in only half a percent of those tested.
If 64 million people are tested each week, that means each week 320,ooo people could be wrongly told that they have COVID19 and forced to self isolate and so forth.
Add to that the thousands who might test positive even though most will have no symptoms and you are talking of thousands upon thousands of “cases” each week forced to self isolate .
The country is under attack all right – but it isn’t from a virus.
••••
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.
Leave a Reply