In this featured article, the retired British statistician, John Dee, beginning the process of inviting us to take a close look at this crucial question:
Exactly how many people did the alleged SARS COV 2 virus actually kill?
And some are even asking:
Did it actually kill anybody?
It has already emerged, as the truth inevitably finds its way through the force screens of censorship and official disinformation, that the virus with which the government managed to terrify the citizenry is much milder and less lethal than the propaganda would have us believe.
If you factor in the falsification of the fatality stats, the misuse of the fraudulent PCR test to inflate the numbers, the rebranding, as Dr Vernon Coleman has said, of influenza and similar ailments to lump them all under the Covid19 label, the Midazolam Murders in our cares homes and, as discussed below, iatrogenic deaths, it starts to look as if hardly anybody at all was actually killed by the alleged virus.
Or if they were, the true fatality stats were too low to justify the over-reaction that led to lockdowns and other catastrophes and the reckless rollout of grossly under-tested unsafe and ineffective pseudovaccines.
Meanwhile of course the pseudovaccines rolled out to protect us from an alleged virus that hardly killed anybody, (and probably nobody at all when not assisted by or taking the blame for government/medical ineptitudes of various kinds) are doing a far more deadly job than the “virus” ever did.
Just how many people did COVID actually and truthfully kill?
Back on 25th March 2021 I first used the word when I wrote:
I don’t know about you folks but I’m getting an uneasy feeling that all these exploratory trials designed to test a raft of drug therapies to combat COVID-19 may have generated iatrogenic death on an unprecedented scale via high dose and cumulative toxicity leading to liver failure, sudden cardiac death and multi-organ failure.
This was a comment on the SOLIDARITY, DISCOVERY, RECOVERY, and REMAP drug trials in which incarcerated COVID patients became guinea pigs for a raft of experimental drugs.
Since then I’ve used the word ‘iatrogenic’ 13 times in various posts, which is not a good sign. In a nutshell, It means that a number folk likely died because of medical care, and in this we must include death due to lockdown and other policies as well as closure of health services.
A diabolical example of this is the inexplicable peak in non-COVID care home deaths back in spring 2020; a peak that hasn’t been matched since, and a peak that coincided with evacuation of the frail and elderly from hospital beds, leading to judicious use of end-of-life care pathways (I shall be revising this analysis shortly):
Several times since early 2021 I have questioned whether SARS-COV-2 could be considered as deadly as claimed and, on a couple of occasions, whether there was a virus circulating at all! This wasn’t the result of me wearing foil headgear but basic questioning of the narrative as a consequence of analyses that simply didn’t add up.
Jonathan Engler of HART fame has his sleeves rolled up on this topic and you may find these two articles a good introduction as to where he’s at:
The dude Joel Smalley is similarly on a real roll with this, with the following two recent articles giving it both barrels and then some:
Meanwhile back on the ranch yours truly is trying to find the 20 – 40 seriously quiet hours he needs to nail an iatrogenic harm model; that is, a statistical model that examines the harmful impact of policies, drugs and genetic therapies against a background of respiratory seasonality and incomplete processing of young deaths by the ONS (likely due to delays at the coroner’s end – young folk are not supposed to die).
BTW don’t confuse iatrogenic death with murder! We’re not talking about health professionals bumping people off to meet WEF targets. We’re talking about mistakes, errors of judgement, sloppiness, misdiagnosis, oversight, lack of care, inappropriate protocols and that sort of thing. Often it isn’t an individual at fault but the system of healthcare, which will include systems of patient management that should have been revised or dumped. Much of this can be avoided by regular critical review, which means challenging the status quo, going up against lead clinicians/managers, being open, being flexible and questioning policies across the range of disciplines.
This is some darn strange retirement.
Visit People’s Media at Liberty Rising
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.