Key COVID19 Questions Ignored by Mainstream Media
Below are glaring questions about COVID19 that are not being addressed by the mainstream media. It is incumbent on a responsible free press to look at and report on these concerns without further delay.
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 ‘𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲’ 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻?
Answer – Imperial College. But why is Boris taking advice from Neil Ferguson from Imperial College? A man who has continually produced falsely inflated and alarmist predictions about viruses in the past which have been totally debunked?
Ferguson was the man behind alarmist research that sparked an unnecessary mass culling of farm animals during the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease – which cost Britain billions of pounds.
Ferguson will not open up the model for scrutiny, but our government is using the same model to justify the lockdown!!! First of all he predicted 500,000 deaths. Then he suddenly changed his figures DRASTICALLY, and said that the UK should have enough ICU beds and that the coronavirus will probably kill under 20,000 people in the U.K. – more than 1/2 of whom would have died by the end of the year in any case because they were so old and sick.
So he is saying that we should be expecting 10,000 deaths from covid-19. Boris is saying that 20,000 deaths would be a ‘good’ result, but this is misleading, because he is including the 10,000 who would be expected to die anyway.
https://thefederalist.com/…/the-scientist-whose-doomsday-p…/
𝗡𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁, 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗣𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱
We are being told about covid-19 deaths, but not the number of deaths which would be expected to occur under normal circumstances. Are covid deaths over and above what would normally be expected? Are they over and above the expected number of deaths from flu or pneumonia? PHE says that the number is not statistically significant:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/…/Weekly_all_cause…
𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 ‘𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗿𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵’ 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁?
When the number of deaths from covid is announced, there is the implication that they died as a direct result of covid. However this is not the case. A ‘corona death’ is where a corona infection was proven. But also all those with underlying health problems infected by Covid-19 but for whom it’s not possible to say what killed them. Finally, those not tested before death but suspected of Covid-19 are tested post-death, and if covid is found = corona death.
The distinction between dying ‘with’ Covid-19 and dying ‘due to’ Covid-19 is not just splitting hairs. Take these examples to illustrate the point – an 87-year-old woman with dementia in a nursing home; a 79-year-old man with metastatic bladder cancer; a 29-year-old man with leukaemia treated with chemotherapy; a 46-year-old woman with motor neurone disease for 2 years. All develop chest infections and die.
All test positive for Covid-19. Yet all were vulnerable to death by chest infection from any infective cause (including the flu). Covid-19 might have been the final straw, but it has not caused their deaths. Yet they will all be included in the ‘covid deaths’.
So a lockdown of the population is justified on the basis of couitnting every death as a covid death,even if the patients were going to die anyway. Unless we tighten the criteria for recording death due only to the virus (as opposed to it being present in those who died from other conditions), the official figures may show a lot more deaths apparently caused by the virus than is actually the case
https://www.spectator.co.uk/…/how-to-understand-and-report-…
𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲:
Two articles with opinions from experts, drowned out or disregarded by the mainstream narrative, offering their take on the coronavirus outbreak:
https://off-guardian.org/…/12-experts-questioning-the-coro…/
https://off-guardian.org/…/10-more-experts-criticising-the…/
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 – 𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺, 𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀
The media reporting is another issue. Everyone knows that the media is bought and paid for, and that they lie, deceive and manipulate the public. But for some reason, everyone seems to believe every they are reporting the exact truth when it comes to a ‘pandemic’. Why would it be any different with a pandemic?
There is an agenda now to push the story that young people can die who have no underlying conditions. The Guardian MADE UP a story about a 21 year old woman, and had to retract the story, explaining that she had actually died of a heart attack and that it had nothing to do with covid.
They have now pulled it completely.
An 18 year old boy was also falsely reported of dying with the virus. But even after retracting these stories, the damage has been done in the eyes of the public. The ‘fear porn’ has worked.
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱-𝟭𝟵 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝘆?
We hear reports on the news of hospitals being overrun and under pressure, and of course this is no doubt the case. But reports are coming in about many hospitals that are empty, and staff are wondering where the cases are. This video shows a reporter in Germany going to hospitals which were claimed to be inundated with cases, but finds there are none. And in one of them, staff have been told that they are not allowed to talk to the media.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/…/video-saying-there-is…/
𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀
Since when was the government bothered about your health and well-being? They have allowed thousands of people to die while waiting for benefits. For years they have deliberately covered up serious health risks to the public – asbestos, tobacco, glyphosate…..why would they suddenly care now? Since when was the government bothered about protecting the NHS? It’s been completely decimated for years.
So for what other reasons would a pandemic be declared? Money, corruption, power and control. To bring forward agendas which have been planned for decades. Collapse the global economy = poverty for all. Get people policing their neighbours – already started.
The cashless society.
A Universal Basic Income where everyone is dependent on the state (when millions lose their homes and businesses, this can be rolled out). A police state – has anyone noticed yet that we are now no longer living in a democracy? Mandatory vaccinations which can only be acceptable if the public are petrified of ‘killer viruses’.
Next we will see the introduction of tracking of everyone via mandatory phone apps, censorship of anyone who does not go along with the official narrative. .And microchipping is not far down the line either. This shutdown of the world is also being used by Telecomms companies to install 5G in schools where they know that they would get opposition. This is actually going on right now in various parts of the UK. A ‘pandemic’ can be declared for many reasons, but none of them are to do with the health and well-being of any of us.
Read more at www.vigiliae.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
richard
| #
Priceless!
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Nice piece Jill Kirkwood but there is a lot more to come. For instance …
Some questions yet to be answered (maybe yet to be asked) —
1. What animals (outside of those known in China) can be infected with this virus?
2. How many of these animal that can carry this virus be long term harbingers of this virus, and so could be the source of new outbreaks?
3. What level of immunity does someone have once recovered from this virus — similar to a cold or similar to measles?
4. As this virus (similar to other corona viruses) mutates what is the rate of mutation,
and
5. Are those who previously recovered from the virus have better natural resistance to the newer (mutated) strains?
Reply
Dev
| #
If John O’sullivan, Joseph Postma, Derek Alker, Nasif Nahle can build upon the the discrepancies of the woods experiment among many others to illustrate the missing greenhouse effect and thus highlight the hijacking of physical science by controlling entities, then why should medical science evade similar inquiry (from the likes of Bechamp, Rife, Bare, Shelton, Tilden, Kohnlein, Mullis, De Haven, Popadopolous, Lanka) that shows precisely the same hijack has occurred.
Reply
Alan
| #
That is an excellent question and it is vital that it gets addressed. Human society is now highly dependent on science and it seems the majority have less and less understanding of the basics and are even seem willing to be deceived where there is a potential threat. My belief is that humans are successful because of their ability to deal with risk but the last 20 years or so has seen a change to people being risk adverse and they expect governments to eliminate all risk, so along come “scientists” to take advantage of it for their financial gain.
The reaction to climate change and the coronavirus have been compared by many and for me this demonstrates how science can be hijacked. I studied mechanical engineering and hence thermodynamics and so the fraud of the greenhouse effect was obvious. However, I have no background in medicine and so I have no knowledge to allow me to determine who is correct about the coronavirus. But I can see the uncertainty in the available data; I can see how Ferguson has changed his views; I can see how the government has panicked and has failed to look at the risks of the virus compared to the risks of their policies. Governments are pursuing the wrong policies on climate and I have no doubt that they are doing the same for the coronavirus but for the later we will be feeling the result of their failure very soon.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
My neighbor has three teenage daughters. Out of fear of them becoming pregnant, he has locked them in their rooms for the next four years. I asked him why he thought this was the best approach. He replied, “Because, this is what the medical experts have advised me to do.”
I asked him, “Why don’t you simply get them a prescription for inexpensive, mostly reliable birth control pills?”
He said, “According to most media outlets, there is no such thing. And if there were, it would be unsafe, with devastating side effects.”
In the spirit of cooperation, I offered another possible, known solution, “Well, have you tried Medieval Chastity Belts?”
Have we all reverted to ‘Stone Age’ logic and medicine?
Reply
Alan
| #
We may have reverted to medieval precautionist policies when women were accused of weather cooking and as a precaution they were burnt at the stake as witches. Precaution and emotion has replaced rational, science based decision making.
Everything is now a battle, a fight or a war but in real wars governments must use science to win, for example Barnes Wallace and the bouncing bomb. Now academics are more interested in government money rather than giving scientific advice and so they give the advice that produces the highest income and job security for them and they get away with it because polticians have no real experience of life outside politics. Churchill was a fighter and so he was a good wartime PM, but he had no understanding of life in peacetime.
Reply
Chris
| #
This is not about the existence of a deadly disease, but the fear of one.
Reply