ER Editor: This short, valuable extract from a Times article (paywall, alas) speaks to several topics we’ve published on about the Coronavirus PLANdemic. Namely,
- Suspicious deaths in carehomes; Do Not Resuscitate orders suddenly issued on the elderly who could otherwise have lived with basic assistance; administration of extraordinary quantities of Midazolam (Rivotril in France) around this time
- A suspicious volume of ‘death due to Covid’ definitions, which would inflate Covid death statistics
- Signing off deaths as due to ‘Covid’ without adequate testing (not simply the PCR test)
- Post-mortems were actively discouraged across the board in many countries around the time Covid infections started. One would imagine them to be ENCOURAGED given the appearance of a new disease.
- Public health officials know very well that consistent definition is essential for dealing effectively with the problem.
Beyond the ’14 definitions of Covid death’ angle, the report below pieces together a disturbing picture around carehome management, with the judgement of death ultimately being left up to the carehome providers.
So did ANYBODY actually die BECAUSE OF Covid?
Covid Deaths “Impossible to Calculate” as Authorities Used 14 Different Definitions, Say Oxford Researchers
WILL JONES for DAILY SCEPTIC
The number of people who have died from Covid in the U.K. during the pandemic is impossible to determine because of the inconsistent definitions of what is meant by a coronavirus death, researchers at Oxford University have concluded.
The Telegraph has the story.
Experts from Oxford University discovered that public health and statistics organisations across the U.K. are operating under 14 different definitions to classify a death from Covid.
Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, collated for a new report published on Saturday, show that many people who died in the first wave never tested positive for the virus, particularly older people who died in care homes.
Instead, their deaths were registered as Covid simply based on a statement of the care home provider, and because coronavirus was rife at the time.
In some care homes, more than half of the Covid deaths were registered in people without pre-existing conditions, which the report authors said was “implausible” for people who needed residential care.
The authors also point out that it is unlikely that a Covid infection on its own could cause death in the absence of contributing factors, such as other illness, or the infection leading to a more deadly condition such as pneumonia.
The report also found that in some trusts, up to 95% of Covid deaths were in people with Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders.
The team said the confusion meant they were unable to separate deaths caused by Covid from those triggered by the pandemic response, and called for a proportion of deaths to be verified by post-mortem in future pandemics to determine the true reason.
Worth reading in full and find the report here.
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.