Further submission to the COVID chronicles

Written by Joel Smalley on September 26, 2022. Posted in Current News

People often ask me why I bother. Doesn’t most of the research and analysis we do simply fall on deaf ears?

Well, apart from ensuring that when my children grow up, they will know that I wasn’t one of those who simple gave up in despair (or worse still didn’t bother at all) when their future was at stake, my personal motivation is to maintain a chronicle that hopefully will eventually hold those accountable who are responsible for the dire situation we have endured over the last two and a half years.

Earlier this month, I sent a copy of this email regarding NHS preparedness to my local MP, Kemi Badenoch:

I have pledged to keep a public record of our correspondence so here is her response:

Thank you for your email about the NHS and the COVID-19 pandemic.

It has been right that, at all stages through the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government has been guided by the latest scientific advice, and the action it has taken has allowed it to protect the vulnerable and ensure the NHS is not overwhelmed.

As is clear from previous correspondence, we have differing views on the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures introduced to prevent the uncontrollable spread of the virus.

Regarding staffing levels, work is ongoing with NHS England and NHS Improvement, Health Education England to increase recruitment, and this has already made an impact. For example the number of GP training places has increased, with 4,000 trainees accepting a place in 2021-22, compared to 2,671 in 2014.

Furthermore, I support the Government’s commitment to recruit 50,000 more nurses in addition to the 7,500 further nurse associates announced previously. As of June 2022, the number of NHS nurses had increased by over 27,000 FTE from the preceding year.

With regards to bed capacity, medical advances meaning patients do not have to stay in hospital as long and a shift in policy towards providing treatment and care outside hospital have both contributed to a reduction in the number of hospital beds.
The Government works closely with the NHS on capacity planning to ensure there are sufficient beds to meet future demand, and £1.5 billion was announced at the Spending Review 2021 for new surgical hubs, increased bed capacity, and equipment to help elective services recover.

Hospitals regularly plan for surges and NHS Trusts set their own operational plans, including bed capacity. In 2021, this took into account the ongoing impact of infection prevention and control guidance, social distancing and demand for future elective, non-elective and Covid-19 patient management.

NHS bed capacity is not fixed and can be flexed to meet changes in demand, for example over the winter months. I am aware that the NHS recently set out steps to boost capacity and resilience ahead of the winter period. 7,000 more hospital beds will be available through a mix of delivering new hospital beds, ‘virtual ward’ spaces and initiatives to improve patient flow.

Regarding waiting lists, the Government is providing historic investment in health and our NHS, and is committed to funding our health and public services properly. Following the 2021 Spending Review, NHS England’s day-to-day budget is set to grow by 3.8 per cent on average up to 2024/25, supporting the NHS to tackle the elective backlog, deliver its Long Term Plan and ensure it has the resources needed to recover from the impact of Covid-19.

Spending on health services will increase from £133 billion at the start of this Parliament, to over £177 billion by the end: an increase of over £44 billion. Despite difficult financial circumstances, NHS investment has increased every year since 2010.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been an unprecedented challenge and had a profound impact on the NHS. I know that the Government is absolutely committed to supporting the NHS recovery from Covid-19. Over £8 billion will be spent up to 2024/25 to support the delivery of around nine million more checks, scans and procedures. It will also mean the NHS can aim to deliver around 30 per cent more elective activity by 2024-25 than before the pandemic.

Regarding masks and other preventative measures in hospitals, NHS has set out that GP surgeries should now be providing face-to-face appointments as well as remote consultations. In March 2022, 62 per cent of appointments were face-to-face.

NHS guidance also states that health and care staff should continue to wear face masks when working in Covid-19 and respiratory pathways and in settings where patients are at high risk due to immunosuppression. Inpatients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 and outpatients with respiratory symptoms attending emergency care should also be provided with a face covering.

I also recognise the importance of being able to visit loved ones in hospitals and the contribution this can make to an individual’s wellbeing. Inpatients in hospitals can be more vulnerable to Covid-19 but the Government and NHS England have been clear that visits should be facilitated.

Regarding testing for NHS staff, asymptomatic testing will continue in periods of high prevalence in some high risk settings where infection can spread rapidly, including for patient facing staff in health and social care and for a small number of care home visitors who provide personal care.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

This is a copy of my latest response back:

Thank you for your reply.

Alas, as expected you continue to promote the misguided and unsubstantiated position of the government.

Please stop with the dogmatic rhetoric that the government has “protected the vulnerable and ensured the NHS is not overwhelmed”. The evidence proves that the contrary is true.

No, we do not have different “views” on the COVID pandemic.  You have views.  I have nothing but evidence that refutes your view. Despite numerous requests, you have consistently failed to back up your views or substantiate the government’s position with facts and evidence.

The government has not been guided by scientific advice because the government helped to kill the scientific method by ensuring that any scientific evidence that contradicted the narrative was suppressed. Science progresses in a chamber of debate where opposing hypotheses are tested, not in a vacuum of government-sponsored experts, acting according to their own biases and self-interest.

I know this from first-hand experience of being continually censored by media platforms for sharing my diligent research and that of other revered scientists since the start of the COVID era.

By failing to challenge any policy, in spite of being properly furnished with reams of information and requests to do so,  properly representing your constituents, you have made yourself entirely complicit in the failure.

Fortunately, I have maintained a complete public record of the science that the government didn’t follow by continually archiving research and analysis before the platform censors can take me offline.  I include in that copies of our correspondence so that your failure to act is also recorded.

Here are a selection of links from 2020 from world-renown scientists,  including epidemiologists that proved, even back then, that COVID was not the challenge that you claim it was,  but predicting that your response would ultimately result in a worse outcome, not only the catastrophic economic outcomes we now face but also in terms of health and mortality:

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_covid19-coronavirus-activity-6658688963064270848-91Xa

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_the-data-is-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-activity-6658798780097409024-4EIr

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_covid19-coronavirus-activity-6664193891102785536-dKTo

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joelsmalley_we-misunderstood-coronavirus-now-we-underestimate-activity-6665176841491480576-pXi0

Here are my own most recent analyses, proving that those predictions exactly came to pass:

Does reducing the mobility of healthy people help to mitigate the impact of an airborne virus? –

Editor’s note: there follows another 16 images, then the article continues:

I’m not convinced you will bother reading any of the material and, to be honest, I see little more point asking you to provide a counter to them, so really this email is just to create yet another public record of the fact that you continue to ignore the evidence against the actions you support, and refuse to represent the legitimate and evidence- based concerns of your constituents.

However, if you do want to properly debate the evidence, I am willing to do so in public or private. Given the broad array of subject matter, I’m also happy for you to bring along any experts you think you might need.

I will keep doing all I can to make the world a better place for my children. If my only success is to get a politician to act with integrity and in the best interests of the people, that will be worth the effort.

See more here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.