From the very beginning of the manufactured COVID-19 crisis, observant critics have been pointing out deviations from accepted scientific and medical norms in the diagnosis of this new clinical syndrome, and the attribution of deaths to it.
By: Robyn Chuter
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford examined the various case definitions offered by national and international bodies, and concluded that there was no consistent definition of what a “case” of COVID-19 actually was.
Furthermore, contrary to accepted practice for infectious diseases, people who had no symptoms of disease whatsoever but had tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2, using laboratory tests whose own manufacturers caution that they should not be used to diagnose disease, were counted as cases.
This is unprecedented. No one is diagnosed with the flu merely because they test positive to influenza virus; one would have to be actually displaying symptoms of respiratory illness to be counted as a “case” of influenza.
Way back in March 2020, retired pathologist Dr John Lee brought attention to the abrupt departure from standard practices of recording deaths from respiratory disease, that were only being applied to COVID-19 and not to influenza or any other respiratory virus:
“If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease’. So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.
Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.
In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate — contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind. There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.”
How prescient Dr Lee turned out to be. In country after country, when the medical records of people whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19 were examined, the overwhelming majority were found to be a) elderly and b) have multiple comorbidities which would be expected to reduce their already-limited life expectancy, as well as render them susceptible to any respiratory virus, including influenza and the host of viruses that cause cold and flu-like symptoms.
In Italy, for example, according to Professor Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to the health minister,
“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three.”
Detailed analysis of supposed COVID-19 deaths in the US state of Tennessee found that 96.3% had at least one comorbidity, and the majority had close to three.
And in Australia, “71.2% of people who died from COVID-19 had pre-existing chronic conditions certified on the death certificate,” with the median age of death 81.2 years for males and 86.0 years for females.
To put it bluntly, we really don’t know how many people have died from rather than with SARS-CoV-2 infection – that is, we don’t know how many people whose deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 would have died within a few months anyway, due to advanced age and/or pre-existing life-limiting disease, if they had not been infected.
Some deaths that genuinely were directly attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection have no doubt been missed, and some (probably many, if not most) deaths have been mis-attributed to SARS-CoV-2 infection.
That’s what makes all-cause mortality a useful measure of the overall impact of the advent of SARS-CoV-2, and I’ll be focusing on this (and some related metrics) in Part 1 of this mini-series.
Quite simply, all-cause mortality is the total number of deaths that occur in a given time period, irrespective of cause. If SARS-CoV-2 is truly a deadly virus, we would expect to have seen all-cause mortality rise in the first year of its emergence. And conversely, if the novel injections commonly called “COVID-19 vaccines” were truly safe and effective, we would expect to see all-cause mortality fall in countries that have administered them to a large proportion of their population.
How does these expectations mesh with reality?
All-cause mortality in 2020In Australia, all-cause mortality in 2020 was lower than expected, with an age-standardised death rate (SDR) for January to October of 355.3 per 100,000 people, compared to the average SDR for 2015-2019 of 386.5. So in the middle of what we were told was the deadliest pandemic since the 1918 Spanish flu, with COVID death counters blaring from the chyrons of every news program, considerably fewer Australians died than in previous years.
An analysis of mortality data from 37 countries found that in 2020, all-cause mortality ranged from 4.3% less than expected to 14.4% more than expected. And here’s something strange: Latvia had 2.2% fewer overall deaths than expected, despite having the 22nd highest number of deaths attributed to COVID-19 per million of population (out of 224 countries).
Something fishy is clearly going on. Intriguingly, Denis Rancourt’s forensic analysis of week-by-week mortality data in the US and Europe found no “winter-burden mortality that is statistically larger than for past winters” in 2020, but did observe a sharp peak of excess mortality in several jurisdictions, that directly followed the declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
However, this “COVID peak” was not observed in the seven US states (Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Arkansas) that did not impose a lockdown. Instead, Rancourt found, the presence of a “COVID peak” was positively correlated with the share of COVID-19-assigned deaths occurring in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, to which – inexplicably and disastrously – hospital patients were discharged at the beginning of the pandemic, seeding institutions full of vulnerable elderly people with sick individuals.
“I postulate that the “COVID peak” represents an accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable, by government and institutional actions, rather than being an epidemiological signature of a novel virus, irrespective of the degree to which the virus is novel from the perspective of viral speciation.”