When the COVID “crisis” started it really did look like a crisis, an end of the world apocalyptic, end of the human species event that could signal the death of us all.
I mean, it’s not surprising that people were scared.
Videos of people dropping dead in the streets of China, reports of huge numbers of deaths, emergency hospitals being built in days, who could have helped but to be frightened, to be worried, to be afraid?
But before long, after the virus hit our shores we discovered that while some died, many more did not. In fact a substantial number of people infected with the deadly virus survived, reportedly a staggering 99.7% of them across all age ranges and all health conditions.
When you break this down further to look at age ranges, you find that really it’s only the very old and sick who succumb to natures (or maybe mans) latest illness, looking at the official statistics from the government the younger you get, the less the risk. In the UK in the almost 18 months to to July 9th just 25 children and young people (aged new born – 19 years old) have died “with” COVID, probably while suffering from comorbidities [see BBC and UK Parliament].
So what is going on?
On the one hand the media, SAGE and the government are relentlessly banging the drums of fear, but on the other you can see with your own two eyes that the fear mongering isn’t warranted.
Should we be terrified? Should we listen to the “experts” and be afraid? Why have any scientists, doctors, and other medics who disagree with the narrative been silenced and deplatformed?
Well, while politicians, the media, and “experts” with large share holdings in pharamceutical companies might lie, numbers don’t.
While you are repeatedly told COVID is a pandemic, is this even true?
A few years ago the UK Government wanted to increase tax on alcohol, and their justification for this was that “binge drinking” had increased and was a health and social risk.
Binge drinking had been talked about for years and was widely accepted to mean someone who went out for 2 or 3 days, got totally blathered, and was incapable of working or functioning.
So how had binge drinking figures suddenly become so bad? They changed the definition to mean anyone who goes out and has 3 or 4 pints or units in one sitting. No wonder then.
A similar thing was done with the definition of a pandemic.
So I think that what we need to do is go right back to basics, wipe the slate clean and start again by considering the actual numbers, because these numbers are facts, numbers and facts don’t lie, and right now facts seem to be rather thin on the ground.
Thankfully the maths is childs play...
When you hear pandemic you probably think of Spanish Flu – so let’s compare COVID to that.
The Spanish Flu hit in 1918 when there were 1.5 Billion people alive on Earth, it is claimed it infected one third of the population, so roughly 500 million people, and of those between 10% and 20% died, which works out to 50 million to 100 million people.
Today there are 7.9 Billion people alive, roughly 5.26 times as many people, living in bigger, more densley populated towns and cities, travelling more on packed trains and buses to work in bigger, more populated offices and workplaces.
Ignoring the fact that we live in a much more densley packed world, travel more, and work in bigger places with people arriving from lots of diverse communities, if we simply take the two accepted death rates for Spanish Flu and multiply by 5.26, then the deaths from COVID (if it were a similar threat) would be:
If you do take the fact we are much more crowded together into account, then the death rate could be 2 or 3 or 4 times those numbers. How many have died “with” COVID?
Remember also that this is people who have died of COVID within 28 days (or in some cases 60 days) of a positive PCR test, and since many of them were ill with other diseases, and contracted COVID in hospital, or may have been false positives (see point 3 below), then the true number of people who died “of” COVID is believed to be as low as 5% of the reported numbers.
If the true number is 5% then COVID is between 0.076% and 0.038% as deadly as Spanish Flu. How can you visualise this?
Note that during the Spanish Flu they used face masks, socially distanced, had lockdowns, and didn’t have PCR tests. If they were ill they knew they were ill because they were laid up in makeshift hospital beds trying desperately to cling onto life.
In 1918 with a raging pandemic and so many deaths, the world population dropped, and understandbly so.
In 2020 in the midst of the supposed biggest health crisis ever, the world population grew by 80 million people [see worldometers].
Surely though there must have been more burials and cremations?
Numerous people have obtained the data from Freedom of Information requests from all UK councils, and in many cases 2020 had less burials or cremations than the previous 6 years.
I know it’s hard to believe this could be true, so here is an interview with a funeral director explaining his experience of the last 18 months.
The problem is that with all of the fear mongering and endless doom and gloom it’s easy to just accept what the telly-box tells you, but if you open your eyes, ask “what if it’s not true” and listen to people other than the same, tired old “experts” they keep wheeling out, then it becomes impossible not to see it.
Just remember that out of 7.9 Billion people only 4 million have died “within 28 days of a positive PCR test (and in some cases 60 days)”, and if only 5% of these people actually died of COVID then the true number of deaths is 200,000 in 18 months, over 2 flu seasons. Typical of a bad flu.
A polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was not, according to it’s inventor Kary Mullis (who shared the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for it, and who died suddenly in 2019), suitable for diagnosing disease and was never meant for that purpose.
What it does, to paraphrase Kary Mullis, is take a very small amount of something and create a whole lot of it.
How does it do this?
Basically the PCR amplifies a sample to produce a bigger sample, which can be amplified again to create more, etc.
The more cycles (or amplifications) you run, the bigger the amount you have at the end. Kary Mullis said (again paraphrasing): “If you amplify a sample enough times you can find anything in it.” [see video].
In the UK the NHS have consistently run the PCR tests at 45 cycles (as per FOI request in June 2021), even after the World Health Organisation (WHO) demanded that cycles should be no more than 25-27.
How much difference does 27 to 45 cycles make?
Let’s imagine you start with £1 and every day you double what you have. So on day 1 you have £2, on day 2 you have £4, etc.
After 20 days you would have £1million; After 25 days you would have £33 million; After 45 days you would have £35 million million – or £35 Trillion.
This is why PCR tests are so unreliable, because if they are incorrectly used or cycled too many times then you can find anything that you care to look for, and if you amplify too much then you will get positive results from negative samples (i.e. people will test positive for COVID even though they don’t have it).
It has been estimated by experts such as Dr Mike Yeadon (ex VP of Pfizer, where he was worldwide head of respiratory diseases) that the number of false positives at 45 cycles are probably in the order of 97%. That is to say that if 100 people test positive, only 3 of them are real COVID cases.
If Dr Yeadon is correct then the true scale of COVID cases is miniscule compared to the numbers we are being presented with, and correspondingly the numbers of deaths (within 28 or 60 days of a positive PCR test) will also be grossly over-exaggerated.
In the UK today (18th July 2021) case numbers are rising fast, but how much of that might be down to the 1.2 million PCR tests being done every day? The last time numbers were this high the number of PCR tests was “only” 400,000 per day. Since testing more people finds more cases, what is the real state of affairs?
Okay so having seen how few people die from COVID, especially compared to other pandemics or diseases, and seeing how few burials and cremations there have been, and also seeing how misleading PCR test results can be, then…
This is the $64 thousand Dollar Question.
Pfizer claim that they have (from their own trial data) a 94% efficacy. But is this true? Fortunately they kindly provided that data to the world, and since it’s simple maths we can check for ourselves.
From Pfizers own trial data they had their participants split into 2 groups:
You may have noticed that I highlighted “placebo”. this is because some pharmaceutical companies can be rather tricky when it comes to trials.
When you hear the word placebo you probably think of sugar pills or injections of saline solution, but what some of them do is give the placebo group an alternative vaccine, usually something known to have horrendous side effects like one of the meningitis jabs.
Why might they do this? It is done so that later when reporting on side effects they can say “there were no noticeable differences between the placebo group and the vaccine group,” which puts the idea into your mind that their vaccine is no different to getting a shot of water, when nothing could be further from the truth.
On top of that, after giving the groups their shots they sent them on their way back to their lives, then recalled them later to test them and see if any tested positive for COVID. To my mind this totally invalidates the entire trial.
Rather than giving them all their shots and then exposing them all to COVID, then testing to see who was positive and who wasn’t, they took a scientific double blind test, then threw the science out of the window by relying on chance with absolutely no control over who might be exposed to COVID in the real world.
When you consider how tricky some of these companies can be, how do we know that they didn’t select the vaccine recipients from areas with very low COVID cases, and from sedentary demographics who rarely leave their homes, and the “placebo group” from people living in areas with high numbers of cases, and from jobs where they interact with lots of people each day, or have to travel on trains or buses?
I’m not suggesting they did this, just pointing out how, if there were $Hundreds of Billions at stake, you could manipulate the results to give you the answers you want to see. Anyway, back to the numbers from the actual Pfizer trial.
When Pfizer tested the 36,620 trial participants they found that:
WOW! – that looks amazing, only 8 from the vax group got COVID, while 162 unvaxed did. The maths they used is simple:
However, as already pointed out the trial is fatally flawed, and now the maths is too, because this equation does not calculate efficacy, it calculates Relative Risk Reduction; That is to say, it compares the number of positives in one group with the number of positives in the other and calculates a ratio of the two.
What is doesn’t do is consider the whole group, including those who did not test positive for COVID. If you do that you can see:
Now, considering the whole set of numbers, and comparing 18,302 to 18,148 doesn’t look anywhere near as impressive, does it?
In fact the important calculation here is the Absolute Risk Reduction, that is to say, considering the entire number of people, vaxed and not, those who did test positive and those who did not, how much does the jab, in the real world, reduce the chances of a person contracting COVID in real absolute terms?
The maths for this is even easier:
So in real terms, in the real world, using Pfizers own data, the difference in chance of an unvaxed vs a vaxed person contracting COVID is under 1%.
This is a really important question, and sadly is one that the media, government, SAGE, and NHS seem to want to hide at every opportunity.
In the UK there is the Yellow Card reporting system, that not many people seem to know about, and that doctors seem reluctant to use. It might be anecdotal, but looking at lots of online groups frequented by people who have fallen ill shortly after their jab/s, health professionals seem all to eager to say “oh no, it’s not the jab, it’s a coincidence.”
Sadly the coincidences seem to keep on growing, while accountability keeps on shrinking. In the videos section you can find interviews with Professor Emeritus Sucharit Bhakdi who described the likely outcome of side effects (blood clots, etc) and the mechanisms that would cause them before they actually occurred.
In the UK the Yellow Card system is very hard to navigate around, I recommend using the excellent tool created by the equally excellent UK Column to explore the records in detail. So far (on the 18th July 2021) in the UK there have been reported 1,440 deaths and over 1 million adverse reactions.
Worryingly, it is estimated that only between 1% and 10% of adverse reactions are reported.
In the US is the VAERS database for vaccine side effects, which also estimates only between 1% and 10% of reactions being reported. The chart to the side shows all vaccine deaths by year, you can clearly see the impact of COVID vaccines (click the image to see full size)
Normally a vaccine would be withdrawn after 20 or 30 deaths. In the US there have reportedly (via VAERS) been over 3,000 – more in 7 months or so than in the previous 10+ years, and now they want to give it to children. Does that make sense, considering the information at the top of this page?
Anyway – where’s the maths?
Okay here it is, and it relates to the question “are illnesses after a jab caused by the jab, or are they indeed a coincidence?”
It’s difficult to tell isn’t it? No doubt some will be coincidences, and some will be vaccine injuries (unless you are an ardent believer of politicians, in which case they will all be coincidences), so how can you tell?
Thankfully the UK government have “done goofed” and have given us the means to tell.
Suppose you give 1 million people jab 1 and 1 million people jab 2; Out of that group of 2 million people you expect some number of them to die, and some number of them to develop some random illness, including rare ones like cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), or some other rare occurance, like going blind.
If you just had 2 million people reported in one lump, and X number died and Y number got ill, you could write it all off as coincidence.
But when the government report that X number of people who got jab 1 died and Y fell ill, and X number of people who got jab 2 died, and Y number fell ill, and they tell you what those ailments were, well, you can now compare those 2 groups together and see if the outcomes really are coincidental.
That is to say, if the outcomes really are nothing to do with the jabs and are down to fate, then the numbers of strokes, heart problems, CVTs, etc should be largely the same for all vaccines (when weighted so you’re comparing like for like numbers).
But they aren’t. They are VERY different, with different reactions being specific to individual vaccines, which strongly suggests that the specific reactions are a result of the specific jabs.
For example, using the compiled and highly searchable data from the UK Column:
Comparing Astra Zeneca and Pfizer (the 2 most used in the UK) and searching for nervous system disorders:
Go and take a look for yourself, don’t take my word for it.
According to Sky News, Public Health England (PHE) looked at 257 people known to have died with the “Delta Variant.”
From those 92 were unvaccinated, but 118 had taken both doses, the other 47 had taken 1 dose. According to Sky News “that’s because the vaccines are good but not perfect,” and “even if you’ve had a jab you still have a small risk.”
How can this possibly be construed as good?
Presumably there would be far more unvaccinated people who came down with COVID than vaccinated (assuming the jab does anything to prevent catching it, or reduce illness), so how can almost twice as many jabbed people die, unless the predictions of Dr Mike Yeadon and Professor Sucharit Bhakdi are correct, and the jabs actually make people more susceptible to the virus?
According to Professor Ian Frazer (co-devloper of the worlds first cancer vaccine) when interviewed in April 2020 by ABC News Australia [*I highly recommend reading this interview] in the entire history of vaccine manufacture, despite decades of work from world leading scientists and tens of millions of dollars, we have never been able to produce a vaccine for a coronavirus.
This is because it infects the surface of the upper respiratory tract, the mucus membranes where we have a very weak immune response. We have a very weak immune response there for a reason. A powerful immune response would cause swelling and inflammation in the respiratory tract, and end up with the immune system attacking the membranes and lungs, causing life threatening damage.
In every trial ever done the animals in the trial have experienced a more severe disease pathology (been more ill than if they hadn’t had the jab), and in some cases all of the test animals have died.
Professor Frazer was being interviewed to give his opinion on whether a vaccine might be possible, in his words:
“It’s [the respiratory tract] a separate immune system, if you like, which isn’t easily accessible by vaccine technology. Despite your upper respiratory tract feeling very much like it’s inside your body, it’s effectively considered an external surface for the purposes of immunisation.”
“It’s a bit like trying to get a vaccine to kill a virus on the surface of your skin. Your skin, and the outer layer of cells in your upper respiratory tract act as a barrier to viruses, stopping them getting into the body. And finding a way to neutralise the virus “outside” of the body is very difficult.”
“One of the problems with corona vaccines in the past has been that when the immune response does cross over to where the virus-infected cells are it actually increases the pathology rather than reducing it,” Professor Frazer said.
“So that immunisation with SARS corona vaccine caused, in animals, inflammation in the lungs which wouldn’t otherwise have been there if the vaccine hadn’t been given.”
We have coupled this with mRNA, never used in humans before (and with similar animal trial track records) and decided to jab everyone in the world, children and babies included. Is that really a good idea when, as highlighted earlier, there are immediate serious side effects, no medium or long term data, and the virus doesn’t even touch 99.99% of children?
Just to put the icing on the cake we are also running a mass vaccination programme in the middle of an active epidemic, something that has never been done before. This has raised concerns from experts like Geert Vanden Bossche regarding the possibility that vaccinated people contracting the virus will eventually result in variants that can overcome and are resistant to the vaccines, rather like “super bugs” that are resistant to antibiotics.
Since we are in uncharted territory in a number of different ways it is impossible to know what the end result will be, but if this were to happen then the outcome could be that vaccinated people have, in effect, no immune system at all to fight the virus.
The emperical data doesn’t match the claimed severity of the virus, particularly when you consider the numbers of deaths when compared to previous pandemics like Spanish Flu, calling into question whether this is a genuine pandemic or public health emergency.
The claimed efficacy of the vaccines, coupled with the lack of transparency over adverse reactions seriously clouds the wisdom of continuing with such an approach.
At the very least it may be wise and prudent to ease off the accelerator and just take some time to re-assess the situation.