The mortality statistics for
COVID 19 have been incessantly hammered into our heads by the mainstream media
(MSM). Every day they report these hardest of facts to justify the lockdown
(house arrest) and to prove to us that living in abject fear of the COVID 19
syndrome is the only sensible reaction.
Apparently, only the most
lucrative vaccine ever devised can possibly save us.
The COVID 19 mortality
statistics are the reason millions will undoubtedly download contact tracing
(State surveillance) apps. This will help the vaccinated to secure their very
own immunity passports (identity papers) and enable them to prove they are
allowed to exist in the post-COVID 19 society, whenever the State demands to
see their authorisation.
But how reliable are these
statistics? What do they really tell us about what is happening outside the
confines of our incarceration? Do they reveal the harsh reality of an
unprecedented deadly virus sweeping the nation or does the story of how they
have been manipulated, inflated, fudged and exploited tell us something else?
THE ONCE RELIABLE OFFICE OF
NATIONAL STATISTICS
In order to register a death
in England and Wales, under normal circumstances, a qualified doctor needs to
record the cause of death on the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death (MCCD).
They must then notify the
Medical Examiner for a corroborating opinion. Providing the doctor is clear on
the cause of death and no irregularities or suspicions are noted, if the
Medical Examiner concurs, there is no need to refer the death to a coroner.
The second opinion of the
Medical Examiner (another qualified doctor) was introduced in 2016 following a
series of high profile systemic abuses. The mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman,
and doctors at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust and Southern Health NHS
Trust, covered up crimes and widespread malpractice by improperly completing
MCCDs.
Today, once the Medical
Examiner agrees, they then discuss the death with a qualified informant. This
is usually someone who knows the deceased. It is an opportunity, more often
than not, for a family member or friend to discuss any concerns about the
suggested cause of death. If no further issues are raised, the death
certificate can be issued to the informant, the Local Registrar notified and
the death recorded.
Registered deaths have been
recorded in England and Wales since 1837. From 1911 onward the cause of death
has been coded in accordance with the International Classification of Diseases
(ICD). Maintaining registration records was the responsibility of the General
Register Office until 1970 when it became a department of the Office of
Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS). In 1996 the OPCS merged with the
Central Statistical Office (CSO) to form the Office of National Statistics
(ONS).
There have been some tweaks
and legislative changes to the system over the years.
Technology has sped things up
a bit, but essentially the simple process of recording registered deaths has
changed little over the last century. The ONS have been accurately recording
registered deaths in England and Wales for more than 23 years.
From a statistical
perspective this consistent, verifiable system has allowed meaningful analysis
to inform public health practice and policy for decades. The inbuilt
safeguards, maintained and improved over the years, means the ONS provide some
of the most reliable mortality statistics in the world.
They record all registered
deaths no matter where they occurred in England and Wales. Whether the deceased
died in hospital, a care home or in the community, once registration is
complete the ONS add it to their statistics.
For weekly statistics the ONS
week runs from Saturday to Friday and the statistics are released 11 days after
the week ending date. There may be an additional lag for a small number of more
complex cases. However, all are eventually resolved and the ONS record the
registration of the death in the week it was notified. The ONS also release
mortality statistics on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis for comparison.
This does not suit a hungry
MSM eager to sensationalise reported COVID 19 deaths. Nor does it serve the
immediate interests of State officials who want the public to accept their own
house arrest.
Consequently the MSM have
reported COVID 19 mortality statistics from a variety of sources. Some from the
NHS, some from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and eventually
the ONS.
Now the Care Quality
Commission have also been thrown into the mix.
Ultimately, all of these
deaths will be registered. The ONS will record them and it will be possible to
know how many died, the causes of death and the trends identified.
Except in the case of COVID
19.
THE VAGUE CASE OF A COVID 19
DEATH
The Coronavirus Act 2020
received Royal assent on March 25th. This had significant implications for the
registration of deaths and the accuracy of ONS data in relation to COVID 19.
Not only did the act
indemnify all NHS doctors against any claims of negligence during the lockdown,
it also removed the need for a jury led inquest. Effectively, only in the case
of death from the notifiable disease of COVID 19. Worrying as these elements of
the legislation are, they are just part of a raft of changes singling out
registered COVID 19 deaths as unusually imprecise.
The NHS issued guidance to
assist doctors to comply with the new legislation. Any doctor can sign the
MCCD. There is no need for the scrutiny of a second Medical Examiner. The
Medical Examiner, or any other doctor, can sign the MCCD alone. The safeguards
introduced in 2016 were removed, but only in the case of COVID 19.
Doctors do not necessarily
need to have examined the deceased prior to signing the MCCD. If it is
considered impractical for the doctor who last saw the deceased to complete the
MCCD, providing they report that the deceased probably had COVID 19, any other
qualified doctor can sign the death certificate as a COVID 19 death.
There is no requirement for
any signing doctor to have even seen the deceased prior to issuing the MCCD. A
video link consultation within the 4 week period leading up to the patient’s
death, is deemed sufficient for them to pronounce death from COVID 19.
If that were not tenuous
enough, as long as the signing doctor believes the death was from COVID 19,
potentially absent any examination at all, perhaps simply by reviewing the
patient’s case notes, if a coroner agrees, a COVID 19 death can still be registered.
The coroner’s agreement is
practically a fait accomplis. On the 26th March the UK State released guidance
from the Chief Coroner. This was intended as advice to all coroners in cases of
COVID 19 referral.
There were some notable
changes to normal coronal procedures. Paragraph 5 strongly reminded coroners of
their obligation to maintain judicial conduct. It stated:
The Chief Coroner cannot
envisage a situation in the current pandemic where a coroner should be engaging
in interviews with the media or making any public statements to the press.”
This thinly veiled threat to
coroners made it clear that speaking out about any concerns would be considered
a breech of judicial conduct. A career-ending act it would seem.
Social distancing is
essential
The NHS guidance advised that
if no signing doctor has seen the deceased prior to registration of death, a
referral to the coroner must be made. This is a procedural recommendation, not
a legal requirement. A legal requirement is only applicable in cases of unknown
or suspicious causes of death. In turn, the Chief Coroner’s guidance states:
“COVID-19 is a naturally
occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death
[…] the aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does
not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD
process.”
The Coronavirus Act 2020 also
meant that a qualified informant, who agrees with the cause of death on the
MCCD, no longer needed to be anyone acquainted with the deceased. A hospital
official, someone who is ‘in charge of a body’ or a funeral director can
perform this vital function. The Chief Coroner advised:
“For registration: where next
of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures, the arrangement for
relatives (etc) should be for an alternative informant who has not been in
contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for
registration purposes. The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this
to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.”
Most relatives, or someone
acquainted with the deceased, will be following self-isolation procedures. They
will almost certainly be terrified of contracting COVID19 because they have
just been told their loved one or friend died from it. Furthermore, the
Coronavirus Act has effectively placed them under house arrest.
In other words, if the MCCD
signing doctor hasn’t seen the patient, while they were alive, no further
inquiry is necessary. The qualified informant can be someone who has neither
met the deceased nor knows anything about the circumstances surrounding their
death.
In this situation, but only
for COVID19 deaths, it is fine to assume the death was from the disease. If
you, the coroner, don’t like the idea, don’t make a fuss. Just sign the damn
thing or else.
IMPACTING THE COVID19
STATISTICS
This quite bizarre death
registration process compelled the ONS to issue guidance to doctors signing
MCCDs. Not only is there no need for an examination to pronounce death from
COVID19, nor is there any necessity for a positive test or even an indicative CT
scan.
In their guidance the ONS
advised doctors on what constitutes an acceptable underlying cause of death.
When mortality statistics are used for research it is usually the most relevant
factor. The vast majority of COVID19 deaths reported by the State and the MSM
also reflect its identification as the underlying cause.
The World Health Organisation
(WHO) define this as:
“The disease or injury which
initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death.”
For COVID19, this
determination can be based upon the clinical judgement of a doctor who has
never met the deceased. Quite possibly following nothing more than a video link
consultation or a case note review of symptoms.
The problem is the symptoms
of COVID19 are largely indistinguishable from a range of other respiratory
illnesses. A study from the University of Toronto found:
“The symptoms can vary, with
some patients remaining asymptomatic, while others present with fever, cough,
fatigue, and a host of other symptoms. The symptoms may be similar to patients
with influenza or the common cold.”
Nor is there any requirement
for a post mortem to confirm the presence of COVID19. Guidance from the Royal
College of Pathologists states:
“If a death is believed to be
due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a
post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of
Death should be issued.”
Clear causation between the
underlying cause and the direct cause is imperative to establish the fact. Just
because someone tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 (SC2) virus it doesn’t mean
they developed the associated syndrome of COVID19.
The Oxford Centre for
Evidence Based Medicine found that anything between 5% – 80% of people who
tested positive for SC2 did not have any symptoms of COVID19. Asymptomatic
people do not have a disease which impacts their health in the short term. Even
for those who did test positive for SC2, claims that this was the underlying
cause of death are dubious in an unknown number of cases.
Following the Coronavirus
Act, in keeping with advice from the NHS, the ONS advised doctors:
“If before death the patient
had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been
received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death….In
the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical
judgement.”
This isn’t unique to COVID19.
Doctors are required to complete MCCDs “to the best of their knowledge and
belief” even when test results may not yet be available. The difference in the
case of COVID19 is that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory
opinions and every opportunity to question the cause of death have been
removed.
In addition, the need to
complete Cremation form 5, requiring a second medical opinion, has been
suspended for all COVID19 deaths. Given that post mortem confirmation is also
extremely unlikely and agreement from a coroner is all but assured, this means
possible COVID19 decedents can be cremated without any clear evidence they ever
had the disease.
In light of all the other
registration oddities for determining COVID19 mortality, the direct causation,
proving COVID19 was the underlying cause of death, appears extremely doubtful.
We just don’t know how many people have died from COVID19. We are told many
people have, but we cannot state with any certainty what the numbers are.
Neither can the ONS.
Obviously concerned about the
implications, the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) have called for a
systemic post outbreak review. The Health Service Journal reports that the
RCPath expects a detailed investigation into causes of death due to the degree
of uncertainty.
STATISTICALLY IT GETS WORSE
The overwhelming majority of
medical and care staff, coroners, pathologists, ONS statisticians and funeral
directors have no desire to mislead anyone. However, in the case of COVID19
deaths, the State has created a registration system so ambiguous it is
virtually useless. The statistical product recorded by the ONS, despite their
best efforts, is correspondingly vacuous.
This hasn’t stopped the State
and the MSM from reporting every death as proof of the deadliness of COVID19.
Claims of COVID19 as the underlying cause of death should be treated with
considerable scepticism.
Initially the daily reports
were based upon the figures of COVID19 deaths released by the NHS via the DHSC.
These were the numbers with positive test results. The ONS also recorded
positive test registrations from the NHS, care settings and the community.
As discussed, a positive test
for SC2 doesn’t necessarily mean you suffered any health impact from COVID19.
In addition, the test itself has proved to have a varying degree of
reliability.
Nonetheless, the ONS figures
from all settings, were higher than those reported by the MSM and the State in
their daily briefings. However, the reliance upon positive tests changed on
March 29th.
The State instructed the ONS
not only to record all registered COVID19 deaths, where positive tests results
were known, but also where COVID19 was merely suspected. In combination with
the possibly spurious attribution from hospitals, this ‘mention’ of COVID19,
further distanced the statistics from clear, confirmed causes of death.
This prompted a significant
increase in the COVID19 fatalities reported by the ONS. Not because more people
were dying from it, but because the categorisation of COVID19 deaths had
changed. Any mention of COVID19 anywhere on the death certificate, regardless
of other comorbidities, such as heart failure or cancer, were now recorded as
registered COVID19 deaths by the ONS.
This addition of claimed
COVID19 deaths has punctuated the ONS data throughout the outbreak. While we
are told by the MSM that these new figures better reflect the reality of
COVID19 mortality, in truth we are moving further away from any meaningful
record.
The evidence suggests the methodology
has been altered at opportune moments to inflate and maintain the mortality
statistics. Just after the virus peak of infection and the start of the
lockdown, the State instructed the ONS to include suspected “mentions” of
COVID19. Again, as the recorded numbers of deaths were dropping, the State
started releasing more figures from the care sector. From April 29th they have
introduced additional figures provided by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
If the figures from the NHS
are at best questionable, the figures from the CQC run the risk of moving us
into fantasy land. All the same problems of decedents not being seen, video
consultations, lack of corroborative medical opinion and so forth remain.
However, in care settings the onus for signing MCCDs shifts from hospital
doctors to General Practitioners (GP’s).
The CQC is the independent
regulator of health and social care in England. During the COVID19 outbreak it
has not required care homes or community care providers to notify them of
suspected cases. It has also suspended all inspections.
From the 29th April the CQC
will provide statistics to the ONS where a “care home provider has stated
COVID-19 as a suspected or confirmed cause of death.” This notification is made
online via the CQC’s Provider Portal. Provisional figures will be included in
the ONS daily updates.
The CQC is tasked with making
sure decedents from care homes who died in hospital are removed from the
reports before submitting them to the ONS. Otherwise massive duplication will
occur. We can only hope statisticians will be extremely diligent.
The ONS has reported what
these statistics from the CQC will be based upon. Frankly, it makes jaw
dropping reading. The ONS state:
“The inclusion of a death in
the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement
of the care home provider, which may or may not correspond to a medical
diagnosis or test result, or be reflected in the death certification.”
Most care home providers are
not medically trained. Their judgement regarding whether or not the decedent
had COVID19 may well be the result of a once weekly phone call with a GP.
Guidance to GP’s from NHS England states that Possible COVID19 patients should
be identified primarily by weekly check-ins online.
This is in keeping with the
NHS Key Principles of General Practice, in relation to COVID19, which states:
Remote consultations should
be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when
appropriate.”
The ONS add:
There is no validation built
into the quality of data on collection. Fields may be left blank or may contain
information that is contradictory, and this may not be resolved at the point of
publication. Most pertinent to this release are place of death and whether the
death was as a result of confirmed or suspected coronavirus.
This is the system the CQC
will use to collect the data for the ONS reports. Once someone, either in a
care home or cared for in the community, is assumed to have died of COVID19,
based upon the best guess of the care provider following a chat with a local
GP, in keeping with the process we have already discussed, their MCCD will be
signed off as a COVID19 death.
The ONS will add their death
to the COVID19 statistics and the State and the MSM will report them to the
public as confirmed COVID19 mortality.
How anyone can consider the
statistics from care providers an accurate and reliable record of COVID19
deaths is difficult to envisage. Nonetheless, that is what we are asked to
believe.
THE STATE AND MSM COVID19
FUDGE
All we are able to identify
with any certainty are the total number of of all deaths, called all cause
mortality, reported by the ONS. We cannot be confident about what caused those
deaths during the COVID19 outbreak.
The State has presided over a
truly remarkable bastardisation of the ONS data for COVID19. This has not only
rendered records of COVID19 deaths a statistical black hole but, during the
claimed pandemic, has also made the ONS data for other causes of excess
mortality practically unknowable.
Especially for the ONS, any
chance of accurately separating COVID19 deaths from other causes of mortality
has been completely obliterated by State diktat. For the first time in their
history the ONS are reporting a relatively large number of highly dubious registered
causes of death. However, they remain our best hope of knowing how many people
have passed away.
In the meantime, while we
wait for the ONS data to emerge, the MSM are reporting every COVID19 death from
any source they can find. Some are vaguely confirmed and some not. They are
also reporting suspected COVID19 deaths from care homes, provisional figures
from the NHS , the CQC and then the same figures again from the DHSC and later
the ONS.
The narrative they are
presenting, on the back of this hodgepodge of statistical irrelevance, is
designed to convince the public of the severity of the outbreak in the UK.
There is clearly high excess mortality at the moment. Thanks to the lockdown,
this is happening while the NHS is essentially closed to everyone other than
suspected COVID19 patients.
Early studies have already
predicted a significant health impact from the lack of essential health care
caused by the lockdown. People requiring treatment for a range of other
potentially fatal conditions aren’t getting it. This was acknowledged by the
UK’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Witty in the daily briefing on April 30th:
“…You have the direct deaths
from coronavirus but also indirect deaths. Part of which is caused by the NHS
and public health services not being able to do what they normally can to look
after people with other conditions….It is therefore important…..to do the other
important things like urgent cancer care, elective surgery and all the other
thing like screening….which we need to do to keep people healthy.”
How many people have died of
other causes, due to the lockdown, only to be registered as COVID19 deaths? We
just don’t know and the ONS have no way of finding out.
However we do know, thanks to
the ONS, the total all cause mortality as a percentage of population in England
and Wales over recent decades. This analysis shows us, while excess mortality
this year is high, it is by no means unprecedented. In fact, as a percentage of
population, it is notably lower to the comparable years of 1995, 1996, 1998 and
1999. Yet none of these years necessitated the shut down of the economy nor the
dire health consequences of closing the NHS to all but a few patients.
[click to enlarge]
Between 27th March and 17th
April (ONS weeks 14,15 & 16) the ONS registered 25,932 additional deaths
above the statistical recent 5 year norm. Of these 11,427 recorded COVID19 as
the sole mentioned underlying cause.
We have just explored the
considerable doubt about this attribution. However, if we accept this figure,
it means the remaining 14,505 people died with other registered underlying
causes. That means approximately 56% of additional excess mortality is
attributable to something else, either in addition to or entirely separate from
suggested COVID19.
Given this inexplicable
Spring mortality, it seems highly likely these are at least some of the
indirect deaths the UK’s Chief Medical Officer spoke of. To claim all these
excess deaths are the result of COVID19, as the State and MSM persistently do,
is without any justification whatsoever.
It is not possible to identify how many people
have died as a direct result of COVID19 either from the registration of deaths
or the resultant statistics. This is not the fault of medical practitioners or
statisticians. It is caused by a State response to a claimed pandemic which has
rendered the most crucial processes, and the data gleaned from them, a
statistical nonsense.