The Unofficial UK Covid-19 Inquiry
The official UK Covid-19 Inquiry has no deadline and will probably run to a cost of over £200 million1
It will serve absolutely no useful purpose because it is asking the wrong questions to the wrong people.
It will result in a load of ill-informed opinions (always worthless) and ignore the evidence. So, here is my unofficial inquiry.
It asks no questions of anyone and is completely unopinionated, relying entirely on evidence derived from official UK public data.
The Evidence
1. There was no unusually deadly virus.
A. Deaths of care home residents in England can be accurately predicted as a function of non-resident deaths of those aged 70 and above.
B. The deaths have an 84 percent correlation and evidently are almost identical in their temporal variability.
C. Prior to “COVID”, around one-third of all deaths of this age cohort are care home resident.
All of this information indicates that seasonal mortality, purported to be driven by respiratory pathogens (corona and influenza viruses), does not disfavour care home residents.
In plain speak, viruses (whether or not you believe they are transmissible, let alone exist) don’t care if you are a care home resident or not.
And yet, during “COVID”, the proportion of care home resident deaths shoots up to over 50 percent between 23-MAR-20 and 01-JUN-20.
During this same period, is when the first wave of excess mortality occurred.
In the absence of evidence to support a “novel” virus to explain this explosion in mortality (as presented above), we should look at other material factors, especially those that would disfavour care home residents.
I said I would only present evidence here but I am sure you can speculate what those other factors might be?2
2. There was no unusually deadly virus.
A. In spite of “COVID” still showing up on the zealous testing, the following autumn seasonal mortality of 70+ year olds in England, both care home resident and not, shows no materially unusual patterns or magnitude until 21-DEC-20.
B. On this occasion, the trigger does not disfavour care home residents. In other words, it increases mortality in both cohorts equally. This means we cannot rule out a novel virus.
However, there is no evidence supporting the emergence of such a novel virus at that time, only the one purported to have emerged in spring 2020. I do not present the evidence here but it is widely accepted and entirely logical that infectious viruses do not evolve to become more virulent.
So… if the winter 2020 trigger was also not likely to be the emergence of a novel virus, what was it?
Again, I’ll let you speculate…
3. There was no unusually deadly virus.
A. Outside of the periods immediately following two pertinent trigger points (16-MAR-20 and 21-DEC-20), there is no materially unusual mortality, despite “evidence” (PCR/lateral flow testing) of the continued existence of an alleged novel, deadly virus.
Conclusion
- There was no unusually deadly virus.
- There was substantial excess mortality.
- Some other interventions were responsible for the excess mortality, other than a “novel, deadly virus”.
In case you’re wondering what I’m thinking – Matt Hancock probably has a fair amount of explaining to do.
See more here substack.com
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
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.