READ AND SHARE THE WHOLE THING.

These are just a few excerpts…

Frankly, if it had not been for mainstream media and the government, I would not have even noticed there were a pandemic. I experienced no excessive dying, and no excessive becoming seriously ill. Since January, I have worked in three different general practices across England, in two regions. Accumulatively, they contained over 16,000 patients. Up to my last time of asking in September 2020 there had been many well Covid-19 “swab positives”, and only 5 deaths “with” a Covid-19 “swab positive”. Those 5 deaths were all white, over 60 years, with other co-morbidities.

In the BAME-dominated practice of nearly 6000 where I work with the most deprived, the poor, the homeless, addicts, and migrants, no one was known to have died in association “with” a Covid-19 swab-positive test.

In the practice of 1800 where I worked through the inception and peak of the pandemic, only two people died of anything between January and July. These two were expected deaths of metastatic terminal cancer.

Enough has been said on statistics and science to convince the current government response is disproportionate. Yet most governments dismiss it all with incredible contempt. Clinical experience is as equally relevant as the statistical manipulation and science. My experience is no one but the government and mainstream media are sharing apocalyptic Covid-19 death experiences with me. I don’t see it in my clinical practice as a simple GP.

My attitude to the government pandemic advice hardened significantly when I received the CCG (Clinical Commissioning Group) advice on pyrexical over-70-year olds in the community: do not admit them. If they get very ill, call the Macmillan nurse and palliative care team. This was my first sniff of the new-normal clinical lunacy. It was redolent of the swine flu panic where in 2009 we were negligently told to prescribe novel anti-viral medication to anyone on the basis of the slightest raised temperature, regardless of better alternative diagnoses. A reasonable body of doctors would never do this under sane conditions.

As it happens, such was the lack of community cases of clinically unwell Covid-19, I never had to use the triple therapy. The closest I got was when a very feverish lady in her 80s was being left to probably die of a severe sepsis. She was refused hospital admission. At that time, I was not allowed to see her, as we had a dedicated coronavirus “red hub” to remotely triage queried coronavirus cases to. Its guidelines had concluded temperature equated to coronavirus, which in turn equated to no hospital access allowed for over-70s. This was my third experience of what was now a reeking stench. Fortunately, her home-help called me to notify me of the ensuing danger. I assessed the situation remotely and concluded that the clinical logic of the red hub was wrong. The most likely cause was line sepsis (she had an in-dwelling feeding line in a major blood vessel). I spoke to the red hub and the hospital to explain that the guidelines were fatally negligent. They took her in, and line sepsis it was. This simply required a new line and intravenous antibiotics. She survived to re-join her husband, but how many are still dying of perfectly treatable, potentially fatal illness?

The first two confirmed cases in the UK were 29 January 2020. Had the virus actually been caught in the act, on an electron microscope, isolated and purified from a human Covid-19 victim, yet? The International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) announced “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)” as the name of the presumed novel coronavirus (nCoV-2019) on 11 February 2020.

It also appeared to me that we had blind trust in China and the WHO, which in a knee jerk, prematurely decided that Covid-19 was a disease (i.e. a condition with a definite aetiology) and not a syndrome (i.e. a collection of symptoms and signs without a definite sole cause – just like the elusive irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS).

The 2020 new infectious disease pseudoscientific paradigm goes something like this: anyone and everyone is a potential coronavirus super-spreader, all the time, regardless of fever, other symptoms, or no symptoms. Whether you have already had it or not, whether one wears a mask or not, the risk is always there. You may even contract it again, and again.

Anyone who dies within 28 days of a positive coronavirus test is a coronavirus death. The nominated standard community test for Covid-19 is an unprecedentedly bad one, far from any gold standard test. Potentially up to 93 percent may be false positive. This will create a synthetic “case-demic” spike because the health secretary pushes poor mass-testing hard and fast. This will be used to frighten those of the public who do not understand statistics, and who understandably instinctively trust their government. Testing simultaneously for more probable causes such as colds, flu and pneumonia will not be done. Everyone else with any other disease can go rot or go private. Children who are almost never at fatal risk (unlike with influenza) will be denied proper social care, an education and freedom of association.

This is not normal clinical medicine, nor public health medicine Where was this year’s flu, respiratory viruses and pneumonia mortality spikes? Perhaps they were parasitically conflated with that will-o-the-wisp SARS-CoV-2?

It is an irrational doomsday reading of the situation by our government, which is nothing of the sort in reality. It is a wilful governmental catastrophizing of a situation I have not actually encountered in my professional nor my personal reality this year. Certainly, the emergent case-fatality data is not reflective of the government’s persistent narrative of fear. I find myself asking is this melodrama, or medicine I am being asked by the government to practise?

My greater fear is that, for the government it is a simple waiting game; wait for the normal winter spike of deaths, unscientifically read it up to the worst possible case scenario, and class it all as Covid-19 again, contrary to the old, normal medical paradigm. Then, extend the lockdown measures for another six months to September 2021. Presumably, the government will repeat the “no vaccine, no freedom” mantra, and continue to ignore the cheap, effective community treatments being propounded by my global colleagues, who are being censored, and no-platformed by government and social media.

The promulgators of the official global narrative anticipated dissent and prepared for a global infowars. On 18 October 2019, Event 201 sensed a coronavirus pandemic was imminent and advised in its headline: “The next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.”

Except, it wasn’t the pandemic the triggering the “major cascading economic and societal consequences”. It was the extraordinary, co-ordinated global government and media over- reaction that did the triggering all by itself. Its entire recommendations are predicated on this flawed first heading andsentence:

Event 201’s luminaries went on in recommendation 7: “Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response.”

One only has to look at the echoes of this in Ofcom’s radical, very prescient, and human rights-violating bulletin guidelines released on 23 March 2020 to be even more concerned:

Ofcom will consider any breach arising from harmful Coronavirus-related programming to be potentially serious and will consider taking appropriate regulatory action, which could include the imposition of a statutory sanction.

It reads like an edict from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. But it could equally apply to the government department of health’s own Covid-19 narrative.