Intro by Watchdog
As the article points out, latest instructions from the government on the counting of Covid stats amount to a confession by the government that it has been deliberately falsifying the statistics from the outset so as to conjure the false picture of a pandemic.
It is of course by now broadly known and understood that this is the case and those crying “foul” from the onset of this attack on the nation were correct.
At the time they were sneered and vilified – the criminal gov’s usual tactic for dealing with challenges to its narrative rather for which it has no answer – but those sounding the warning have since been vindicated, as have those raising the alarm over the safety of the new experimental biochemical agents being touted as vaccines for the fake pandemic.
The sudden onset of honesty on the government’s part is of course motivated by a desire for the stats to now show the “effectiveness” of the vaccines in “rescuing us” from the fake pandemic but there is no escaping that fact that it leaves thoroughly exposed the deception fundamental to its entire ruse.
It is difficult to know exactly how many deaths recorded as Covid fatalities (“of” Covid rather than “with” and “with it” based merely on the false positives of the seriously inadequate PCR test). The creation of a confusion of “data”, false stats and so forth makes confident analysis and penetration of the lies difficult – as is the intention – but as the article below explains, a fair guesstimate would be that fewer than twenty percent of the “cases” and fatalities were actually Covid cases and fatalities.
Our conjecture is that if you factor in as well the mis-labelling of illnesses with the same or similar symptoms as Covid (influenza A, influenza B, pneumonia, chest infections, allergies etc) the number may well be lower than ten percent.
This would put the fatalities for instance at around fifteen thousand or thirty thousand if you think the Off Guardian’s estimate is more accurate. This is bad enough for the fifteen to thirty thousand people who died but hardly enough to declare a pandemic and terrify the citizenry into submitting to experimental “vaccines” that are producing already an alarmingly high number of deaths and serious health problems.
If we factor in too the suppression or ignoring of known remedies that were proving highly effective in the hands of competent medical professionals, it appears even that number could have been significantly lower.
The Covid fatalities and the outright fraudulent use of the PCR test, have been key falsehoods amid a stream of lies on the part of a government that has done nothing but deceive and terrorise the British people, for which crimes the persons responsible must be held to account.
We’re not sure how much more evidence is required for the nation to understand that it has been played by a criminal faction whose sly shenanigans have cost thousands of lives and livelihoods – and, as increasing numbers of people are now demanding, to bring those responsible to justice.
The NHS just changed how they count Covid “cases”… here’s why
NHS source claims new data will be “more realistic” in the future, by removing “incidental” Covid from the records.
by Kit Knightly
The UK’s National Health Service has received new instructions from the government on how it should record Covid19 “cases”, separating those who are actually sick from those who just test positive.
From the beginning of the “pandemic” last spring, the NHS (and other countries all over the world) have defined a “case” as anyone who tests positive for the Sars-Cov-2 virus, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms.
Given that as many as 80% of those who have been infected have no symptoms, and the propensity for the flawed PCR tests to return false-positive results, this led to likely massively inflated numbers of “cases”.
Now, though, the NHS is going to attempt to differentiate between patients who actually have the alleged disease “Covid19”, and those who are in hospital for other reasons and only “incidentally” tested positive for the virus.
According to a report in the Independent [emphasis added]:
NHS England has instructed hospitals to make the change to the daily flow of data sent by NHS trusts […] Hospitals have been told to change the way they collect data on patients infected with coronavirus to differentiate between those actually sick with symptoms and those who test positive while seeking treatment for something else.
The distinction between “with” and “from” in Covid deaths – and “with” and “for” in hospitalisations – has been one Covid sceptics all over the world have been keen to make for over a year, but this is the first time any institution has really recognised the difference. And, certainly, it’s the first time any healthcare service has endeavoured to actually catalogue them differently.
So what does the NHS expect the impact of this change to be? Again, from the Independent:
One NHS source said the new data would be “more realistic” as not all patients were sick with the virus, adding: “But it will make figures look better as there have always been some, for example stroke [patients], who also had Covid as an incidental finding”.
That’s a frank admission, and an important one.
For the last eighteen months, voices all over the alternate media have been saying the Covid numbers are unrealistic, specifically because they include people who were never actually sick. We have been called “deniers” and “conspiracy theorists” for our trouble.
But now an NHS source has actually said, going forward, the Covid data will be “more realistic” as it will discount all the patients where Covid was only “an incidental finding”. This is a bigger story than the media coverage suggests – only the Indy and Telegraph are covering it right now, and neither with the focus it deserves.
NHS England is, essentially, tucking away a covert admission that a lot of their fear-mongering statistics were never “realistic”.
Why would they do this? And why now?
Well, here’s what they claim [emphasis added]:
[The NHS said] the move was being done to help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme and whether it was successfully reducing Covid-19 sickness.
But it doesn’t really make any sense, when you think about it.
It will “help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme”? How so?
How does changing the definition at this point possibly help “analyse” anything? Doesn’t it confuse the issue?
Won’t it, in fact, effectively reduce the numbers of official “covid cases”? Doesn’t making the numbers “look better”, at this stage, make the “vaccine” appear more effective?
It’s also important to note that the changes in data collection will only apply to new patients, it will not be retroactive. Prof Keith Willett, NHS England’s Covid incident director, was very clear on that in a quote for the Telegraph [emphasis added]:
In lay terms this could be considered as a binary split between those in hospital ‘for Covid-19’ and those in hospital ‘with Covid-19’. We are asking for this binary split for those patients newly admitted to hospital and those newly diagnosed with Covid while in hospital.”
So, the old (and now admitted unrealistic) data, will not be subject to change. The Covid “case” numbers before June 7th are etched in stone – everyone who tested positive was a “case”.
But after June 7th they will be separating Covid cases who are actually hospitalised due to Covid19, from other patients who only have “incidental covid”.
Any good scientist will tell you you can’t change the way you measure or collect your data halfway through an experiment, and you can’t compare data gathered in one way to data gathered in another. That is not “analysing the effect” of anything, it’s altering the experiment conditions.
The difference between “with” and “for” has always existed, but by applying that filter only to new data they will make it appear that it’s a new phenomenon, caused by the vaccination programme.
It is incredibly bad science.
…but it’s also totally in keeping with the trend of altering Covid practices to create the impression the “vaccine” is having a positive impact.
We’ve already reported that WHO changed their Covid diagnosis guidelines, and their PCR test guidelines, in late 2020 and early 2021, right in line with the first vaccination programs being launched. The US CDC has likewise been repeatedly fiddling their definition of “breakthrough infection” in order to make the vaccines appear more effective.
This NHS change is just more of the same – altering the experimental conditions to achieve the desired outcome. A total, complete inversion of the scientific method, by the same people who zealously scream about “following the science”.
It is deliberate manipulation of the data, being done brazenly in the public eye.
But what impact will it actually have? Throughout the pandemic, how many patients were ever sick with only Covid, and how many had cancer, or a stroke or Alzheimers along with “incidental covid”?
Well, official figures on deaths have shown that well over 80% of so-called “Covid deaths” had at least one serious pre-existing condition, and Bernard Marx did a great breakdown of how the cause of death figures are manipulated. But that’s deaths, what about hospital admissions?
Although only anecdotal, we have been sent results of several Freedom of Information Act requests that UK citizens submitted to their local NHS trusts. These FOI requests ask for the number of people currently in hospital being treated for Covid, or numbers who died solely due to Covid or variations on that theme. Here’s 1, 2, 3, 4 them. There are a lot more available.
The numbers are uniformly small. So, it’s entirely possible that, under this new method of “analysis”, the NHS’s list of “Covid cases” will shrink to almost nothing.
Don’t worry though, should that happen we will likely never be told about it, because NHS England has made it quite plain that they might never release this data to the public. Both the Independent and Telegraph say so, with almost word-for-word the exact same sentence:
NHS England has not yet confirmed whether the data will be made public, as it must be checked and verified first.
They need to “check” and “verify” the data before we’re allowed to see it, huh? It’s almost as if they’ve got something to hide.
The People’s Media
Media of the People, by the People, for the People
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.