Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Manufacturing the Crisis

Table of Contents

  1. Laying the Foundations
  2. Competing Causes of Death
  3. Evidence for Lockdown Deaths
  4. Recovering the Dead
  5. Overall Mortality in the ‘Epidemic’
  6. What Happened to the Excess Deaths?
  7. Conclusions

It’s official. The UK now has the ‘highest COVID death-rate in the world’. To use a phrase repeatedly employed by our Government throughout this crisis to describe the new technologies and programmes of the UK biosecurity state, our national version of the global coronavirus pandemic is ‘world-beating’. In the UK, with only the 6th largest economy in the world, we’ve managed to beat even the epidemically obese USA, which as in most things leads the world in ‘COVID-19 deaths’, as well as the systemically impoverished Peru, which at one time combined the 6th strictest lockdown restrictions in the world with the highest mortality rate. However, although UK’s new pre-eminence has been headline-news in the mainstream media and retweeted across social media, a quick check shows that this only refers to the seven-day average of deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the week before it was reported. In COVID-19 deaths per million of the population the UK (on 1,471 on 27 January) is still lagging behind Gibraltar (2,048), San Marino (1,913), Belgium (1,797), Slovenia (1,647) and the Czech Republic (1,473), and is closely followed by Italy (1,431) — although, if it’s any consolation to the COVID-faithful, we have a higher number of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ than all these countries.

I make no apology for writing flippantly about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, because it’s in precisely this manner that these deaths are being used by our governments and media, and I want to begin to challenge their cynical manipulation of the statistics by showing how easy it is to manufacture a ‘news story’. As always — although we appear to have forgotten it along with everything else we knew about the world in which we live — the old adage about ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’ holds true to this greatest of all lies, the manufacturing of the coronavirus crisis. What I want to do in this article, in contrast, is look at the figures for the mortality rates, places and causes of death in England in 2020 that are slowly being published by the Office for National Statistics in 2021, and discuss what they can tell us about what really happened last year. The figures aren’t conclusive, as the changes to disease taxonomy, protocols for filling in death certificates, criteria for recording deaths, and the flawed testing programme mean we’ll never know how many people actually died from COVID-19 in the UK in 2020; but if we analyse these figures accurately and in their context, it is possible to see some way through the deception to the reality they conceal.

1. Laying the Foundations

I have written about this in considerable detail in Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK, and if you are not familiar with these changes you can read about them there. But let’s start with the problem of taxonomy. On 5 March, at a time when the UK had attributed 1 death to COVID-19 and identified 108 ‘cases’ of SARS-CoV-2, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made The Health Protection (Notification) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 into law. This first amendment, which would not require resolution by Parliament for 40 days from when it returned from its extended recess on 21 April, added COVID-19 and SARs-CoV-2 to the list of, respectively ‘notifiable’ diseases and ‘causative agents’. Under this change to legislation, medical practitioners have a statutory duty to record COVID-19 on a death certificate — as they do not, for example, with pneumonia, the primary cause of death from respiratory diseases.

On top of these changes, there’s the problem of the criteria for the deceased to be recorded as a ‘COVID-19 death’. On 31 March, the Office for National Statistics announced that, in order for a death to be included in its records of ‘COVID-19 deaths’, the disease merely has to be ‘mentioned’ anywhere on the death certificate, without it being ‘the main cause of death’. This includes as a ‘contributing’ factor when ‘combined with other health conditions’, or when a doctor has diagnosed a ‘possible’ case of COVID-19 based on ‘relevant symptoms’ but with no test for SARs-CoV-2 having been conducted, or when the deceased tested positive for SARs-CoV-2 but a post mortem hasn’t established the actual cause of death.

As if this weren’t enough to increase the official tally of deaths attributed to COVID-19 far beyond the numbers of UK citizens that actually died of the disease, there’s the additional problem of the changes to how death certificates record the cause of death. On 20 April, the World Health Organisation (WHO) issued the ‘International guidelines for certification and classification (coding) of COVID-19 as cause of death’. These instructed medical practitioners that, if COVID-19 is the ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ or ‘assumed’ cause of death, it must always be recorded, in Part 1 of the death certificate, as the ‘underlying cause’ of death. In contrast, co-morbidities such as cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes or chronic respiratory infections other than COVID-19 should only be recorded in Part 2 of the death certificate as a ‘contributing’ cause. To clear up any confusion this may cause to a doctor filling out the death certificate of an 80-year-old patient who has died of cancer and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 post mortem, the WHO instructed medical professionals: ‘Always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not.’

There were other changes to how ‘COVID-19 deaths’ are recorded in the UK, implemented by the National Health Service, Public Health England and the Care Quality Commission, all of which contributed to the inaccuracy of the picture being painted by the Government of the threat of COVID-19; but the three changes above laid the foundation for the crisis. The tool most responsible for its manufacture, however, is the already infamous reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

Again, I have written about this at greater length in Part 2 of The Betrayal of the Clerks: UK Intellectuals in the Service of the Biosecurity State and in the addendum to Bowling for Pfizer: Who’s Behind the BioNTech Vaccine?; but, briefly, on 17 January, as part of its recommended protocols for RT-PCR tests, the World Health Organisation published the Corman-Drosten paper, ‘Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR’. Among the numerous flaws in this catastrophically destructive paper, which is being challenged in the German courts, the authors recommended using 45 cycles of thermal amplification of swab samples for SARS-CoV-2, which, as numerous subsequent studies have confirmed, is many times higher than the number of cycles (preferably less than 30) at which the specific coronavirus can be identified, infectious virus reliably detected, or its replication into a disease confirmed.

These protocols were adopted and repeated across the world, including in the UK. On 16 March, the National Health Service, in its ‘Guidance and standard operating procedure: COVID-19 virus testing in NHS laboratories’, recommended a cycle threshold of 45, with anything below 40 to be regarded as a ‘confirmed’ positive. On 28 September, it was estimated that, at even 35 cycles of amplification, 97 per cent of the positives in an RT-PCR test are false. Yet, as late as October 2020, in ‘Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR: A guide for health protection teams’, Public Health England continued to advise those administering the tests in this country that ‘a typical RT-PCR assay will have a maximum of 40 thermal cycles’, while also conceding that such tests are ‘not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present’.

Finally, there is the medically inaccurate equation, which appears to have originated with the media — and especially the site Worldometer — of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 with a ‘case’ of COVID-19. This ignores what Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and one of the most referenced scientists in German history, in an open letter to the German Chancellor published on 26 March, described as the ‘traditional distinction’ in infectiology between infection with a virus and its replication into a disease identified by its clinical symptoms and not by a fatally flawed test. Despite this, this fundamentally flawed equation has been accepted without question, adopted and repeated without commentary by every medical body in the UK, and used by the Government to fabricate the vast number of so-called ‘cases’ of COVID-19 on which the biosecurity state has been built with nothing more than traces of a dead virus.

Given these five changes, 1) to disease taxonomy, 2) to the criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, 3) to identifying the underlying cause of death on a death certificate, 4) to identifying infection with SARS-CoV-2, and 5) to identifying the clinical presence of COVID-19 — all but one of which were in place before the end of March, 2020 — how do we establish how many people actually died of COVID-19 in the UK or, to the contrary, how many deaths from cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes, influenza and the other primary causes of death in the UK have been incorrectly diagnosed and/or recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’?

2. Competing Causes of Death

We can start by looking at the other pre-existing health conditions of the tens of thousands of deceased whose deaths, under the changes made, were attributed to COVID-19. In July 2020, the Office for National Statistics published data on ‘Pre-existing conditions of people who died with COVID-19’. To qualify as such, a pre-existing health condition must appear on the death certificate either below COVID-19 in Part 1, and therefore in the causal chain leading to death, or in Part 2, and therefore as a contributing cause to death, if COVID-19 is mentioned in Part 1. Alternatively, if COVID-19 is mentioned in Part 2 of the death certificate, a pre-existing health condition must appear as the underlying cause of death in Part 1.

Following these definitions, the ONS reported that, of the 50,335 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in England and Wales between March and June 2020, 45,859, 91.1 per cent, had at least one pre-existing health condition, with a mean average of 2.1 conditions for those aged 0 to 69 years of age and 2.3 for those aged 70 years and over. The accompanying dataset recorded that, in the 4 months between March and June 2020, the most common ‘main’ pre-existing health condition recorded on death certificates in England and Wales was dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, with 12,869 deaths constituting 25.6 per cent of all deaths attributed to COVID-19.

By a ‘main’ pre-existing condition the ONS means the condition that is most likely to cause death in the absence of COVID-19. How they derive this is complicated, and I won’t go into it here; but they take their lead from the World Health Organisation’s rules for identifying the ‘underlying cause’ of death, which as we have seen have been changed to ensure that COVID-19 always appears on death certificates in this category, and in doing so excludes everything appearing above Part 1.

After dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, ischaemic heart diseases — meaning those causing stroke through a blood clot or other blockage — were the next most common, with 5,002 death certificates recording it as the ‘main pre-existing health condition’ constituting 9.9 per cent of all deaths attributed to COVID-19. This was followed by influenza and pneumonia, which were present as the main condition on 4,582 death certificates. Of the 50,335 deaths attributed to COVID-19, 4,476 had no main pre-existing health condition on the death certificate, just 8.9 per cent of the total.

But that’s not all. When recording all pre-existing health conditions, their presence on the death certificates of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ is even higher, with 13,840 deaths attributed to COVID-19 having dementia and Alzheimer’s disease also listed, 11,029 deaths having influenza and pneumonia, and 9,820 having diabetes.

Unfortunately — and extraordinarily, given that we’re supposed to be in the middle of an ‘unprecedented’ epidemic threatening the safety of the UK public — since July no other data on the pre-existing health conditions, main and common, of people whose deaths have been officially attributed to COVID-19 has been published by the Office for National Statistics. I’ve written to the ONS to ask when they will update their records, and they responded that they are hoping to do so in February 2021. Why they stopped doing so in July I will leave to you to judge; but when these figures are published I shall add them to this article.

Until then, the National Health Service records of ‘COVID-19 deaths by age-group and pre-existing condition’ show that, as of 20 January, 2021 — so three weeks into the new year — 61,414 of the 64,111 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 (the actual record says ‘tested positive for COVID-19’, which is medically meaningless), over 95 per cent of the total, had at least one pre-existing health condition. Of the remaining 2,697 in which a pre-existing health condition didn’t appear on their death certificate, just 486 were under 60 years of age in 11 months of this ‘epidemic’.

Of those with at least one pre-existing health condition, 26 per cent had diabetes, 17 per cent had dementia, another 17 per cent had chronic kidney disease, 16 per cent had chronic pulmonary disease, 13 per cent had heart disease, and 72 per cent of them had some other health condition. As we have seen, most of the deceased had more than one pre-existing health condition.

What these figures show irrefutably is that less than 5 per cent of the deceased whose deaths in hospital have been attributed to COVID-19 did not have at least one, and usually two or more, health conditions sufficiently life-threatening to appear even on death certificates and records changed to exaggerate the numbers of deaths actually caused by COVID-19. Based on the ONS figures for all deaths attributed to COVID-19 during the first wave of deaths wherever the deceased died, that figure rises to 9 per cent. Together, what these statistics very strongly suggest is that, without those changes to certification and recording, a large percentage of these deaths would not be attributed to COVID-19 but to the primary causes of death in the UK that appear as the ‘contributing cause’ on their death certificates and the ‘pre-existing condition’ in the official records.

3. Evidence for Lockdown Deaths

In addition to this evidence of systemic misdiagnosis and inaccurate recording of deaths in 2020, we can also look at the reports and predictions published by various bodies monitoring medical treatment, health and mortality in the UK. These both record and predict the increase in deaths in 2020 not attributed to COVID-19 but resulting from the withdrawal and cancellation of medical diagnosis, treatment and care as a result of the reprioritising of the NHS, lockdown restrictions, and the terrorism of the UK population by the Government and media. The figures they report are extraordinary, and cannot easily be explained away.

In March 2020, the National Health Service made the decision to free up 30,000 of its 100,000 hospital beds for general and acute care, postpone all non-urgent elective operations, and discharge all hospital inpatients who were medically fit to leave. This resulted in up to 25,000 hospital patients being sent into care homes.

In April 2020, the National Health Service reported a total of 916,581 attendances at Accident and Emergency in England that month, compared with 2,112,165 in the same month the previous year, a reduction of 57 per cent; and 326,581 emergency admissions, compared with 535,226 in 2019, a reduction of 39 per cent.

In May 2020, the Office for National Statistics reported that, in the previous month, deaths from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease had increased above the average by 9,429 in England and 462 in Wales. This was 83 per cent higher than usual in England and 54 per cent higher in Wales, with charities reporting that a reduction in essential medical care and family visits was responsible.

In June 2020 a survey of 128 care homes by the Alzheimer’s Society showed that 79 per cent reported a lack of social contact was causing a deterioration in the health and well-being of residents with dementia, and 75 per cent reported General Practitioners had been reluctant to visit residents.

In July 2020, the Office for National Statistics reported that there were 16,000 excess deaths in March and April not attributed to COVID-19 as a result of changes to emergency care and adult social care under lockdown. The ONS estimated a further 26,000 excess deaths over the rest of 2020 from the same causes, and a further 1,400 excess deaths resulting from changes to primary and community care, with cancer diagnoses, GP referrals and emergency representations stopped or reduced. The same month, the Nursing Times reported that, between March and May, deaths from diabetes at home and in care homes had risen by 47 per cent.

In August 2020, the Institute of Cancer Research reported that a delay of 3 months across all 94,912 patients who were due to have surgery to remove their cancer over the course of the year would lead to an additional 4,755 deaths. Taking into account the length of time that patients are expected to live after their surgery, this delay would amount to 92,214 years of life lost. The report estimated that surgery for cancer affords, on average, 18.1 years of life per patient, of which on average 1 year is lost for a 3-month delay, and 2.2 years are lost with a 6-month delay.

In September 2020, Cancer Research UK reported that, in the 6 months since lockdown, cancer screening was cancelled for 3.2 million people, and that between March and July there was a 39 per cent drop in the seven key diagnostic tests for cancer in England. It also estimated that, between April and August, around 350,000 fewer people than normal in the UK were referred with suspected cancer symptoms.

In October 2020, the Office for National Statistics reported that, between March and September, there were 2,095 excess deaths at home from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease above the 5-year average for England and Wales, an increase of 79.3 per cent. Also in October, the British Heart Foundation reported that, between March and September 2020, there were more than 26,000 excess deaths in private homes across England and Wales, of which  there was an increase of 25.9 per cent in deaths from heart disease in England and of 22.7 per cent in Wales.

In November 2020, the British Medical Journal reported that even a month’s delay in cancer surgery increases the risk of death by 6-13 per cent across all common forms of cancer, with a 3-month delay increasing the risk by approximately 25 per cent, rising to 44 per cent for treatments like bowel cancer chemotherapy.

In December 2020, the National Health Service reported that, in the 10 months since March, attendances at Accident and Emergency in hospitals in England were down by 6,887,183 from the same 10 months in 2019, a 32 per cent reduction; and admissions to A&E were down by 1,052,807, a 20 per cent reduction. In comparison, January and February of 2020 had seen almost exactly the same in both, with just 16,000 fewer attendances and 200 more admissions. These figures include the changes to records made in August, when the figures for A&E began to include booked attendances.

In January 2021, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, in a study of 66 UK hospitals, reported that, during the first lockdown, daily admissions for myocardial infarction or heart attack (the blue line in the table below) and heart failure (red line) decreased by 54 per cent. Admissions recovered to 95 percent of pre-lockdown levels by June; then fell again between October and November to 41 per cent for heart failure and 34 per cent for heart attacks. In both instances, there was a clear correlation between lockdown and reduction in medical care.

That this evidence of the devastating effects of lockdown on the health and lives of the UK population, and in particular the elderly and frail, should be dismissed by medical professionals unreservedly promoting lockdown in mainstream and social media is concerning, to say the least. But it also shows that emotive reports by doctors apparently addicted to their new-found stardom on Twitter are no basis to policies which are not only having a devastating impact on the lives of nearly 68 million people but, according to these reports, have already caused the deaths of tens of thousands of UK citizens and will continue to kill tens of thousands more, for as long as these restrictions are imposed by the Government, enforced by the police and complied with by the public.

4. Recovering the Dead

But — comes the response from the COVID-faithful — if these reports and predictions are accurate, wouldn’t the huge increase in deaths show up at the end of the year on the records of overall mortality? Well, yes and no. Let’s take a look. In January 2021, the Office for National Statistics published ‘Deaths registered by place of occurrence’, in which it records, in the accompanying dataset, the following deaths between 7 March, 2020 (week 11 of the year) and 1 January, 2021 (week 53).

The first statistic that leaps out of these tables is the 40,114 excess deaths over the 5-year average that occurred in private homes in the last 43 weeks of 2020, only 3,881 of which were attributed to COVID-19. Even with all the distortions to how these figures have been produced, this still leaves 36,233 excess ‘non-COVID’ deaths at home. In addition, there were 26,202 excess deaths in care homes over the same period. Here, however, 20,574 were attributed to COVID-19, largely on the say-so of the private companies running the homes and without a corroborating medical diagnosis, leaving 5,628 excess deaths. That’s a total of 41,861 deaths above the 5-year average unaccounted for. Surely, here is the proof of the human cost of lockdown?

Unfortunately not. If we look at the 207,049 deaths in hospital over the same period, there were 13,692 excess; but 54,688 of these deaths were attributed to COVID-19. That leaves a total of 152,361 deaths attributed to causes other than COVID-19, which is 40,996 fewer than the 5-year average. Finally, 33,694 deaths occurred in ‘other’ places than in hospital, at home or in care homes over the same period, of which 1,687 were attributed to COVID-19. That leaves 32,007 deaths from causes other than COVID-19, which is 2,028 fewer than the 5-year average of 34,035. In total, therefore, between 7 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021, there were 43,024 fewer deaths not attributed to COVID-19 in hospitals and places other than private homes or care homes. That’s only 1,163 more than the 41,861 excess deaths at home and in care homes not attributed to COVID-19.

The picture these figures paint is of slightly fewer people dying outside, as one would expect in a nation under lockdown, and a hugely reduced number of people dying in hospitals, which is also consistent with the withdrawal and reduction of hospital care and the fear of attending hospital created by the Government and media. But according to these statistics, roughly the same number of people appear to have died in 2020 from causes other than COVID-19, but they did so at home, primarily, and in slightly fewer numbers in care homes.

However, this conclusion relies on a number of suppositions. The first is that the 41,861 people above the 5-year average who died outside of hospital from something other than COVID-19, which is almost equalled by the 40,996 fewer deaths inside hospital, would not have lived had they had hospital treatment. However, it’s reasonable to assume that the huge increase in the deaths at home and in care homes from causes other than COVID-19 wouldn’t have been anywhere near as high if the deceased had had access to hospital care, and not all of them would have simply died in hospital anyway, and in doing so neatly increased the number of hospital deaths to the 5-year average. If not, we might wonder what the purpose of hospital treatment is other than palliative care. The figures quoted by the Institute of Cancer Research indicate the contrary, that early diagnosis and treatment make a huge difference to the survival rates of patients; and one would expect similar reduction in the number of deaths for those suffering from heart disease, dementia and other life-threatening disease who died at home if they could have accessed hospital care.

The second supposition, of course, is the accuracy of the diagnoses of COVID-19 as the cause of death, the protocol for designating COVID-19 as the ‘underlying cause’ on death certificates, and the criteria for recording a ‘COVID-19 death’ on the ONS records. In particular, in April 2020, the Care Quality Commission, the regulator of health and social care in England, introduced what it called a ‘new way’ to understand whether COVID-19 was ‘involved in the death’ of someone in a care home. This merely requires a statement from the care home provider that COVID-19 was ‘suspected’ as the cause of death, and which ‘may or may not’ correspond to a medical diagnosis, a positive RT-PCR test result for SARs-CoV-2, or even be reflected in the death certificate. It’s by this criteria that 20,574 deaths in care homes were attributed to COVID-19 in 2020.

Given the deliberately distorted and systemically flawed procedures through which these figures have been compiled, they remain, overall, inconclusive in supporting the thesis that lockdown has caused tens of thousands of deaths from causes other than COVID-19. Nonetheless, they do suggest — although without providing the proof — that the increases in deaths from cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes and the other main causes of death in the UK predicted by the various monitoring bodies have been misattributed to COVID-19. But given that the deceased are now gone, and their falsified death certificates are all we have left of the causes of their deaths, how can we find evidence for the manufacture of tens of thousands of ‘COVID-19 deaths’ from their cremated and buried bodies? This is the task of reparation and remembrance with which any true account of 2020 must begin if it is to recover the truth about their deaths from the lies in which they have been shrouded.

5. Overall Mortality in the ‘Epidemic’

On 12 January, the Head of Mortality Analysis at the Office for National Statistics revealed that mortality rate in the UK in 2020, during a civilisation-threatening pandemic necessitating our transition into a biosecurity state, had been the worst since . . . 2008. This is based on what the ONS calls its ‘age-standardised mortality rates’, which take account of both increases in population numbers and the ageing of the population, both of which increase the actual number of deaths. Just as we can’t compare the number of deaths in the UK to those in Germany or the USA to get an accurate comparison of their mortality rates, so we have to adjust to increases in the UK population. In 2008, when the population of England and Wales was 54.84 million, there were 509,090 deaths, compared with 608,002 deaths in 2020, nearly 100,000 more, when the population is 59.83 million, 5 million more. But the overall ageing of the UK population also means that more people can be expected to die in any given year. Between 2009 and 2019, the number of people in the UK aged 65 years and over increased by 22.9 per cent to 12.4 million; the number of people aged 70 years and over increased by 24.7 per cent to 9 million; and the number of people aged 85 years and over increased by 23 per cent to 1.6 million. Taking both these increases into the calculation produces a far more accurate comparison of overall mortality rates between different years.

Fortunately, following a freedom of information request, on 12 January the Office for National Statistics published a report on ‘Annual number of deaths, crude and age-standardised  mortality rates, deaths registered in England and Wales, 1838 to 2019 (final) and 2020 (provisional)’. This shows that the age-standardised mortality rate in 2020 of 1,043.5 deaths per 100,000 of the population was surpassed not only in 2008 (with 1,091.9 deaths per 100,000), but also in 2007 (1,091.8), in 2006 (1,104.3), in 2005 (1,043.8), 2004 (1,163.0), 2003 (1,232.1), 2002 (1,231.3), 2001 (1,236.2) and 2000 (1,266.4). Unfortunately, the calculation of age-standardised mortality rates for England and Wales only goes back to 1942; but every year between then and 2008 had a higher mortality rate than 2020. Even by the measure of the ‘crude mortality rate’ not adjusted for an ageing population, no year before 2004 had a lower mortality rate than 2020. In fact, over the last 79 years, 2020 has the 12th lowest mortality rate.

It’s no surprise that mortality rates throughout 2020 have been consistently compared to the average over the last five years, when those years, as the ONS states, have seen ‘historically low mortality rates’, with 2019 having the lowest rate ever recorded. 2020 has been a moderately worse-than-usual year compared to mortality rates over the last decade, but it is by no definition of the term ‘unprecedented’, as we are constantly told by the Government, its medical spokesmen and the media. In reality — rather than in the media — when compared to the history of the UK, at least since the Second World War, the bar-chart we’ve made from the ONS figures shows that the year 2020 had a historically low mortality rate.

6. What Happened to the Excess Deaths?

So where does that leave the COVID-19 ‘epidemic’? The calculation of 2020’s historically low mortality rate was based on the statistics published by the Office for National Statistics this month on the ‘Provisional leading causes of death for 2020’. In the accompanying datasets for the ‘Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales’, Table 11a shows the age-standardised mortality rate for selected leading causes of death in England between 1 January and 31 December 2020, compared to the 5-year average between 2015 and 2019.

Unsurprisingly, in a year in which 25,000 patients were evicted from NHS hospitals into care homes in which 70 per cent of residents suffer from dementia or severe memory problems, and where the Alzheimer’s Society reported they were denied medical care and family visits under lockdown restrictions, deaths from these diseases in England in 2020 were 4,132 above the five-year average of 61,928 deaths.

Yet, incredibly, in a year in which cancer screening was cancelled for 3.2 million people in the 6 months up to September 2020, and surgery for 94,912 patients was postponed or cancelled, deaths from lung and throat cancer were down 1,537 from the 5-year average of 28,108 deaths.

Just as incredibly, although the British Heart Foundation reported that, between March and September 2020, deaths at home from heart disease were up 25.9 per cent in England due to lockdown restrictions, deaths from heart disease in 2020 were 1,450 below the 5-year average of 53,429 deaths.

More incredibly, deaths from chronic lower respiratory diseases were down by 2,764 from the 5-year average of 29,681, a 9 per cent reduction.

And even more incredibly, deaths from cerebrovascular diseases, which cause strokes, aneurysms and haemorrhages, were down by 2,263 deaths from the 5-year average of 29,943, a fall of 13.2 per cent.

Most incredibly of all, there were 7,313 fewer deaths from influenza and pneumonia in 2020 than the 5-year average of 25,969 deaths, a 28 per cent reduction.

I use the word ‘incredible’ in its proper sense to describe these figures, which are not credible as accurate records of the effects of withdrawing and reducing healthcare to nearly 60 million people for 10 months. Given the deliberate inaccuracy of the criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, largely dependent upon a positive test using an RT-PCR test at thresholds where it can identify so-called ‘cases’ of COVID-19 from fragments of dead coronavirus, it is almost impossible that these thousands of ‘lost’ deaths, and the thousands more caused by lockdown, have not been misdiagnosed and/or incorrectly recorded as ‘COVID-deaths’. But how do we corroborate this thesis with facts?

On 14 January, Public Health England published its analysis of ONS figures on deaths over a shorter timeframe, between 21 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021, the period under which England has been under various degrees of lockdown restrictions. These show that, even with the WHO’s instructions to medical practitioners that COVID-19 must always be listed as the ‘underlying cause’ of death, a total of 7,511 excess deaths in which other health conditions were listed as such were recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’.

As can be seen, deaths from heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, other circulatory diseases, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, urinary diseases, liver diseases, and from causes other than COVID-19, numbered 11,013 over the 5-year average; yet 5,057 of these were listed as ‘COVID-deaths’. Even when deaths from the underlying cause were below the 5-year average, as they were for cancer, acute respiratory infections, chronic lower respiratory diseases, other respiratory diseases and Parkinson’s disease, 2,454 deaths were still registered as ‘COVID-19 deaths’.

Nearly 75 per cent of excess deaths in which dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were listed as the underlying cause were still recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’; over 41 per cent of excess deaths from urinary diseases; nearly 40 per cent of excess deaths from cerebrovascular diseases; 41 per cent of excess deaths disease from other circulatory diseases; 33 per cent of excess deaths from heart diseases; and 31 per cent of excess deaths from liver diseases. While over 50 per cent of excess deaths from all other causes other than COVID-19 were still recorded as COVID-19 deaths.

We should remember that, if COVID-19 had been listed as the ‘underlying cause’ on any of these death certificates, they would all have been recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’ by the Office for National Statistics; yet for all these other underlying causes their appearance on the death certificate wasn’t enough to overcome the changes to the ONS criteria for compiling statistics on mortality in the UK. If not quite proof, this is further evidence of a deliberate and very successful attempt to falsify the official tally of ‘COVID-19’ deaths.

What these figures don’t show, unfortunately, is how many of the deaths from these diseases and illnesses not in excess of the 5-year average were also recorded as COVID-19. But until this information is published, which is unlikely to happen soon if ever, the analysis by Public Health England has additionally revealed that, between 21 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021, there were 18,851 excess deaths in England in which diabetes was mentioned on the death certificate, of which 15,589 were recorded as COVID-19 deaths, nearly 83 per cent of the total.

There were also 22,081 excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 in which dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were also mentioned on the death certificate. That’s slightly more than the 20,574 deaths in care homes that were attributed to COVID-19 on nothing more than the suspicion of the care home providers who locked the elderly and confused residents in their rooms and denied them human contact and medical care.

Finally, there were an astonishing 35,133 excess deaths attributed to COVID-19 in which acute respiratory infections, including influenza and pneumonia, were mentioned on the death certificate. If you’re wondering, as many people have been, where all the deaths from flu disappeared to last year, here’s your answer.

Indeed, the 76,065 excess deaths in which one or more of these 3 categories of health conditions appear on the death certificate equal nearly all of the 76,553 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 in 2020. So why, given the fatality of these causes in other years, was COVID-19 recorded as the underlying cause of death on so many of them in 2020?

The most logical answer to that question is the changes to disease taxonomy, protocol on completing death certificates, criteria for attributing a death to COVID-19, the false positives produced by the RT-PCR testing programme, and the equation of such a positives with symptoms of COVID-19. To this end, the guidelines for death certification from the World Health Organisation about what defines a COVID-19 death are decisive: ‘A death due to COVID-19 may not be attributed to another disease (e.g. cancer)’. Given these changes — which unlike the deaths from COVID-19 truly can be called ‘unprecedented’ — we’ll never know how many people actually died of the disease; but these figures give us some indication of the percentage of deaths misdiagnosed as such. What we do know is that, throughout 2020 and into 2021, the British Heart Foundation, the Institute of Cancer Research, the Alzheimer’s Society, the British Medical Journal and other organisations monitoring the nation’s medical treatment, health and mortality have all recorded and predicted huge increases in deaths from the withdrawal and reduction of medical care under lockdown restrictions.

Mathematically, it’s not possible for the deaths consequent upon these changes to the National Health Service throughout 2020 not to show up on the records of overall mortality. Yet, if we deduct the 81,653 deaths attributed to COVID-19 from the 608,002 deaths in England and Wales last year, we are left with 526,349 deaths from all other causes. That’s 12,734 fewer than the previous 5-year average of 539,083 deaths, when, as we have seen, mortality rates have been at historically low levels. Even with the nearly 5 million fewer diagnoses for cancer, the withdrawn medical care and treatment, the delayed and cancelled operations, the 8,000 fewer hospital beds for general and acute care available due to social distancing in hospitals, the medical staff quarantined on the basis of false positives on RT-PCR tests, the 7 million people too terrorised by the media to attend hospital, the more than 1 million people who didn’t receive emergency care, and the unrelenting assault on the physical and mental health of the population by medically baseless lockdown restrictions and a media campaign of terror, the number of deaths this year, other than those attributed to COVID-19, are lower than they have been since 2016. So the question we have to ask ourselves is: where have all those excess deaths gone?

Again, the most logical answer to that question — and the only one that makes sense of these otherwise inexplicable figures — is that they have been misdiagnosed or inaccurately recorded as ‘COVID-19 deaths’, and that the only epidemic we’re suffering, as our historically low mortality rate in 2020 indicates, is an epidemic of tests. How many have been misdiagnosed? Between 21 March, 2020 and 1 January, 2021 there were 376,668 deaths in England attributed to causes other than COVID-19. If even 20 per cent of them were misdiagnosed as COVID-19, the 76,553 deaths in England officially attributed to COVID-19 last year would vanish. No doubt that’s going too far, but given the percentages of excess deaths from underlying causes other than COVID-19 falsely recorded as ‘COVID-deaths’, it’s possible to get a picture of how easy it has been to manufacture this crisis.

7. Conclusions

The rise in excess deaths in April and May, even over the historically low mortality rates of the last five years, strongly suggests the presence of a disease that, at the least, pushed the already vulnerable to a death that might otherwise have come over the influenza seasons of the last five years when deaths were, again, very low; or at some other time during 2020, or even in the near future. But because of the medical profile of the deceased and the age at which they died, this period of concentrated mortality did not contribute, as we would expect of an epidemic, to an overall rate of mortality different from those over the past 20 years. In 2004, for example, the rate of mortality (1,163.0 per 100,000 of the population) was as high above what it was in 2020 (1,043.5) as last year was above 2019 (925.0), which had the lowest rate ever. The year before that, 2003, it was even higher (1,232.1). So the exaggerated claims of an unprecedented rise in mortality rate from 2019 to 2020 is not borne out by the facts. What was different was how, after a period of sustained fall, this rise on overall mortality was explained to a public previously unaware of mortality rates, and what this suddenly increased awareness of our mortality has been used to justify.

84 per cent of the deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020, over 68,000 deceased, were of people aged 70 years and over. 61 per cent were aged 80 years and over, the average life expectancy in the UK. Around 90 per cent had at least one pre-existing health condition, with most having two. To put these figures into context, in 2020 there were 9,189,000 people aged 70 years and over in the UK, and 412,408 of them, 4.48 per cent, died of causes not attributed to COVID-19. 0.7 per cent of them officially died of COVID-19. It wouldn’t take much to push a population of such elderly and frail people into a life-threatening situation. Lock them up for months on end. Deny them human contact on pain of arrest and fines they couldn’t hope to pay. Withdraw medical treatment. Quarantine their carers. Terrorise them with propaganda about a civilisation-ending disease. Order them to stay at home and avoid the contact of other people like the plague. Tell them hospitals standing empty are on the verge of being overwhelmed. Turn medical centres into places to fear, the breeding grounds of a deadly new disease. That should be more than enough. It has been more than enough. Then, change the medical protocol and criteria for identifying and recording the cause of their deaths, and against all the evidence against its fitness for such use, employ a medically meaningless test to turn traces of a virus that presents no threat to 80 per cent of the population into proof of infection and cause of death. This is how a crisis has been manufactured. This is how a virus is being used to justify the programmes and regulations of the UK biosecurity state.

Even if lockdown restrictions had been shown to do anything to slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 — and dozens of scientific and medical studies from around the world show that it does not — there is nothing in these figures to justify their imposition and enforcement, or our compliance with them when and where they are. On the contrary, what these figures strongly suggest is that it is precisely these restrictions that are responsible for a large proportion of the excess deaths that have pushed the mortality rate higher than it has been for a dozen years. In my opinion, there is strong evidence to indicate that, at a conservative estimate, at least half the 80,000-plus deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 were caused by lockdown restrictions. The nearly 42,000 excess deaths over the 5-year average not attributed to COVID-19 at home and in care homes point towards that figure; as do the more than 43,000 excess deaths estimated to be caused by lockdown by the Office for National Statistics; and the increasingly concerned reports from our various medical bodies about the lack of hospital admissions for the primary causes of death in the UK. But that’s a conservative estimate. The scandal of more than 20,000 excess deaths in care homes swept under the COVID-19 carpet points towards a far higher number. But even at 40,000 people dying at the average life expectancy for the UK, that puts SARS-CoV-2 within the fatality rate of seasonal influenza — as numerous doctors, scientists and modellers not working for the Government or pharmaceutical companies said throughout 2020 — but without the threat influenza presents to the young.

But if the European epicentre of a global ‘pandemic’ is a country suffering its 12th lowest mortality rate in 8 decades, what have been its effects in other countries around the world? All the statistics presented in this article apply to the UK, which, if we don’t have the highest rate of deaths officially attributed to COVID-19 in the world, is certainly hovering around the winner’s podium. Yet the lockdown restrictions imposed upon us and the biosecurity programmes implemented in response to this manufactured crisis are not unique to the British Isles. The same restrictions and worse are being implemented in countries where this so-called ‘pandemic’ can have made no more than a ripple in their mortality rates.

In Germany, where 50,385 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 out of a population of 83.9 million, the Government has made medically meaningless face masks mandatory when leaving the home and announced that those refusing to remain under house arrest on the strength of an unfit-for-purpose RT-PCR test will be put in ‘detention centres’. In Canada, with a population of 37.92 million, 18,462 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19, about a third the number that die from heart disease every year, and less than a quarter that die from cancer, although without banning smoking or requiring exercise by law, or imposing fines on producers and closing down retailers of fatty foods. While in Australia, whose Government has enforced some of the most punitive biosecurity measures in the world, a mere 909 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 out of a population of 26.66 million, three-quarters the number that died in motor-vehicle accidents in 2019, which neither then nor in any previous year occasioned a ban on cars, the closing of roads until accidents dropped to an arbitrary number or ownership of a bicycle as a condition of travel. It is only for COVID-19 that governments have imposed a ban on the death of their citizens, and in doing so have killed at least as much again. If there has been mass compliance to the programmes and regulations of the biosecurity state in these comparatively unaffected countries, what hope is there that here, in the UK, the evidence contradicting claims of an ‘epidemic’ will do anything either to enlighten the terrorised population or to encourage civil disobedience to our subjugation?

Very little, it would appear. While compiling and analysing this data I presented some of it to someone who has appointed himself to inform his 21,500 followers on Twitter with a ‘daily COVID update’ of the data. In response to everything I showed him, he dutifully repeated Government propaganda about the efficacy of lockdown, a dangerously overwhelmed NHS, dismissed the huge increase in deaths at home in 2020 as those who would have died in hospital anyway, and attributed the reduction in deaths not attributed to COVID-19 over the 5-year average to a sudden improvement of healthcare that for some reason only came into effect last year. When I rebutted these assertions with further evidence and rational arguments he was unmoved. He was civil, which made his replies stand out from the abuse and threats I received from others on the thread, but utterly inseparable from the propaganda he had adopted as his own, and which no data contradicting it could alter. It is a long time since the reactions of the terrorised UK public were based on anything other than the lies of the Government and the manipulations of the media; but it is on the data presented in this article and other facts inconvenient to its exponents that resistance to this lie can and must be built by the undeceived.

On 5 January, 2021, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 3) and (All Tiers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 into law. Without a draft being presented to, debated by or approved by Parliament, without evidence of its justification or proportionality, without an assessment of its impact having been made, and without the public having been consulted, this amendment unilaterally extended the current lockdown to 17 July, 2021. Under these restrictions, there will be tens of thousands more deaths, not only from the withdrawal of medical diagnosis, care and treatment, but also from the isolation of the old and frail, from the ongoing assault on the mental health of the young, from the recession of the economy, from the consequent reduction of public investment in an increasingly privatised National Health Service and other social services, and from the loss of millions of businesses and jobs.

Back in July 2020, the Office for National Statistics predicted a further 18,000 excess deaths occurring in the next 2-5 years due to increased heart disease and mental health problems; 12,500 excess deaths over the next 5 years from changes to elective care, with many non-urgent elective treatments continuing to be postponed or cancelled by the NHS; 15,000 excess deaths among young people just entering the labour market as a result of the lockdown-induced recession; and 17,000 excess deaths for every year that GDP remains low. And, of course, there are other costs, not least to the education and mental health of 11 million school children and students being inducted by our educational institutions into the programmes and technologies of the UK biosecurity state; and to the 30 million workers who, under the accelerated digitalisation of our economy and the threat of unemployment and redundancy, will be compelled to retrain to find new employment in the newly emerging markets of the Fourth Industrial Revolution monopolised by international corporations writing the laws of the countries from which their workforce is drawn. Finally, there are the costs to our politics and human rights, which have been thrown on the bonfire of freedoms ignited by the lies that have manufactured this crisis, and will not be returned in the future that awaits us by anything less than the overthrow of the constitutional dictatorship by which we are currently ruled.

The truth is that there was never a question of whether this Government would impose another lockdown on the UK in 2021. Lockdown isn’t a consequence of the failure of coronavirus-justified programmes and regulations: it’s the product of their success in implementing the UK biosecurity state. After a brief summer recess under the system of tiered restrictions, the following winter will see the lockdown of the UK imposed again under newly notifiable diseases from new viruses and new strains, new protocols for certification and new criteria for deaths, the new medical categorisation of new cases which, like the present ones, present little or no threat to public health, but which like it will be used to enforce new technologies, new programmes and new regulations. This is the ‘New Normal’ we were promised, and it’s being built on a foundation of lies, damned lies and statistics.

Simon Elmer
Architects for Social Housing

Further reading by the same author:

Our Default State: Compulsory Vaccination for COVID-19 and Human Rights Law

Bowling for Pfizer: Who’s Behind the BioNTech Vaccine?

Five Stories Under Lockdown

Bread and Circuses: Who’s Behind the Oxford Vaccine for COVID-19?

The Betrayal of the Clerks: UK Intellectuals in the Service of the Biosecurity State

Bonfire of the Freedoms: The Unlawful Exercise of Powers conferred by the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

When the House Burns: Giorgio Agamben on the Coronavirus Crisis

The Infection of Science by Politics: A Nobel Laureate and Biophysicist on the Coronavirus Crisis

The New Normal: What is the UK Biosecurity State? (Part 2. Normalising Fear)

The New Normal: What is the UK Biosecurity State? (Part 1. Programmes and Regulations)

The Science and Law of Refusing to Wear Masks: Texts and Arguments in Support of Civil Disobedience

Lockdown: Collateral Damage in the War on COVID-19

The State of Emergency as Paradigm of Government: Coronavirus Legislation, Implementation and Enforcement

Manufacturing Consensus: The Registering of COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

Giorgio Agamben and the Bio-Politics of COVID-19

Good Morning, Coronazombies! Diary of a Bio-political Crisis Event

Coronazombies! Infection and Denial in the United Kingdom

Language is a Virus: SARs-CoV-2 and the Science of Political Control

Sociology of a Disease: Age, Class and Mortality in the Coronavirus Pandemic

COVID-19 and Capitalism

Architects for Social Housing is a Community Interest Company (no. 10383452). Although we occasionally receive minimal fees for our design work, the majority of what we do is unpaid and we have no source of public funding. If you would like to support our work financially, including the research for these articles, please make a donation through PayPal:

107 thoughts on “Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Manufacturing the Crisis

  1. At last someone who is finding the complete picture. I asked the government and my MP, they will not answer questions about Covid, tell you to listen to daily briefings!!
    What has happened to the integrity and honesty of the coroners in not speaking out, nor the NHS staff who know the truth


    1. A reassuring article in so far as it shows that it is intelligent and helpful to question the governments response to this new coronavirus, and that those of us that doubt the validity of that response have good reason to do so. But terrifying that the statistics seem to have been materially misrepresented so dramatically that it is difficult to imagine, that if that is true, this could have simply been an innocent mistake, or series of mistakes. I do not know enough to contribute to the debate itself. I can only read arguments for and against each side of the debate and try to decide which seems most reasonable and honest. That’s little more than a sniff test! One thing I would ask all sides to do, is to re-examine their understanding of the term Life expectancy. It is a figure derived from a mortality table the significance of which seems to me to be regularly misapplied and poorly understood. I could with difficulty, explain further, but perhaps this would be best left to an Actuary.


  2. Thank you for providing de facto evidence of genocide, what is now required is to identify the key “workers” responsible for enabling the biosecurity deception then try them for crimes against humanity.

    Freedom or serfdom, the true political spectrum.


  3. Thank you Simon for your huge continuing efforts in laying out comprehensive evidence of the true darkness behind the massive psychological operation against populations everywhere.
    It’s becoming increasingly difficult, though no less vital, to swim against the tide. In rare moments, I sometimes wish I could believe in the deadlines of the ‘pandemic’ and the unbelievably harsh measures we’re all living under. It might be less stressful than being able to see what’s really happening, as our lives are turned upside down!
    But alas, of course, that isn’t an option.
    I’m still reeling from the shock of virtually everyone in my circle of friends and acquaintances – critical thinkers all, broadly left politically – have fully embraced the official Covid narrative to the extent that my sense of isolation, politically, has grown. The friendships survive, but with noticeable tensions and a tacit acknowledgement to agree to disagree.
    Two reflections occur to me to help explain this polarity. First, if there wasn’t much individual awareness of the extent of widespread state and corporate media propaganda before Covid, then it became easier to swallow the official line. I’m thinking here of tussles I’ve had with the same friends previously, trying to point out, for instance, the role of the BBC and Guardian, in promoting state narratives for regime change interventions against ‘official enemies’.
    Secondly, I think it’s deeply stressful to contemplate the idea that the Government/ruling class may not have our well being and good health in mind when making decisions, or might even want to cause harm.
    This is usually the crunch point in conversations, where real divergence occurs and the label of conspiracy theorist most likely applied.
    And I do really understand this resistance or refusal to see this possible motivation in our rulers!
    I would take great comfort from the idea that benign intentions are behind all of this.
    But we simply must continue to resist in every way we can, no matter how small that is.
    Not complying with the insanity of the rules and regulations is a revolutionary act.
    I sometimes draw on something from a previous post of yours Simon, which has helped me when friction arises with people I know. In trying to help others to see what’s really happening, and questioning the official narratives, I’ve been accused of arrogance – that I’m awakened and right, and therefore by implication, my friends are wrong – and as you can imagine, this doesn’t go down well, nor is it particularly useful at times. Counter productive even. I’ve learned that how I communicate is as important as what I’m saying.
    To counter any charge of ‘arrogance’ I’ve drawn on the insight you highlighted, that not only is it our duty to keep trying, but that we might be accused of not trying hard enough by the very people who are Covid followers, when the reality of the Dystopian future enfolds and is obvious to everyone.
    Keep up the wonderful work


    1. Well put. Many of us will feel the same. It seems impossible to have a rational discussion with many people today and it is this fact that worries me more than the subject being disussed.


    2. Thank you for your comments, Terry. Your description of feeling alienated from your friends is one that rings true with me too, unfortunately, as I’m sure it does with many others. One would hope that an awareness of media lies, even if it’s only as far back as the Iraq War or the slur campaign against Julian Assange, would be a given among people who identify themselves as left-wing, but the opposite has been the case. The explanation, I think, is exactly what you suggest: that in a choice between believing in a civilisation-threatening virus and the revolution we’re experiencing to a global biosecurity state, almost everyone has chosen to believe the former, as the other is too terrifying to face. As you say, though, we must continue to try and show the truth that is there for everyone to see who wants to.


    3. Thank you Terry. I too have wondered why I might see things differently from others. I have read up a bit about propaganda over the last few years, so that helps. I also feel that a belief in the perpetual benevolence of our rulers should not be assumed. I suppose this underlays some of my opposition to surveillance technologies. They might be established under democratic systems, but once established, they are there for whatever comes next.


    4. I feel your pain, Terry, and one of the oddities I have noted is that it is the Left who are more likely to swallow the COVID claptrap. I think this is because the virus has been pitched as a mortal threat to capitalism and they are so excited at what they are seeing as some kind of revolutionary upsurge that they have very conveniently overlooked the embarrassingly obvious fact that it is precisely that ruling class owned mainstream media they so rightly castigated previously which is now trumpeting the horror of COVID!


  4. I found your link on today’s Conservative Woman article by Delingole just after posting my thoughts on the current apparent large peak in covid deaths and cases over Christmas and January. The delay in the reporting over the holiday resulted in a larger peak afterwards and the mis reporting of covid deaths as non covid gives a very misleading picture. The graphs I was using are Figures 3 and 6 from the latest ONS excess death report. To confirm the conclusion, the latest weeks show a reduction to the average..
    I am unaware to re graph the figure and swap the covid to non covid and wondered whether you had a facility to help. My reasoning is on the Andrew Csdman article under the name of shred. I am also an architect. Perhaps we tend to be natural troublemakers.


  5. Ps. Your detailed analysis of the reasons for the misleading reduction below average for non covid deaths was what I was looking for. If you don’t mind I will put you piece as a link on the CW article.


  6. Dear Mr Elmer

    I have just discovered you via Delingpole at TCW. I left a comment there, suggesting this document is the most important evidence there is in exposing the criminal behaviour of the government and the media.

    All very depressing of course, but wonderful to have found you. You have put into one coherent document the dozens of scribbles and excel sheets I have been intending to finalise at some point…. and now don’t need to.

    If you ever want to meet up for a drink and a chat, my email address is


  7. What you say is quite true, Terry. But as soon as you start to compromise with the majority opinions, and thus to water down your statements, you run a serious risk of gradually being assimilated to the majority opinions.

    Human beings are apes, and like all apes except for orang-utans, tribal in nature. We experience a kind of “social gravity” which continually and relentlessly drags us towards conformity with the group.

    Science and all other forms of exact knowledge depend critically on rejecting “social gravity”, the desire to be liked, the fear of ostracism, etc,; and devoting ourselves solely and absolutely to the objective truth. (See Richard Feynman, passim, and many others going back to Socrates and Plato. As Galileo insisted, “Eppur si muove!”)

    First we must establish the objective truth; then we can use it as seems best. But we must avoid like the plague any kind of compromise in what we say, that could lead to the incorrect majority opinions infiltrating our own beliefs.


    1. The comparison with apes is interesting. They groups have a dominant male, but as he gets older a younger male will take over and the entire group changes their allegiance. Effectively, governments are behaving in the same way and using fear to control us. The other influence is social media. All it needs is an idea to take hold and it soon becomes a fact, with no evidence to support it


  8. Dear Me Elmer
    If this is true, and you write or argue very convincingly, what is the motivation? With what long term objective? And by whom?
    Because the response is beggaring this country and many others.


    1. I hope you don’t mind if I just paste in here two twitter threads which sets things out: you need to follow the replies down through the threads, which outline the way in which fear is being used for the UN-WEF Great Reset involving the Fourth Industrial Revolution, smart cities, big tech, online virtual life, knocking out small businesses in favour of transnationals, end of currency etc:


    2. Please also see this podcast with another distinguished architect, researcher and film producer, Robin Monotti. He explores the various interests involved in the response to covid:


  9. Simon, thank you for this article.

    Like a number of others I came to your site through the Delingpole article on the CW website. For several weeks I have been coming to the view that the undoubted surge in deaths in 2020 over previous years was essentially down to there being ever increasing numbers of elderly or otherwise ‘health compromised’ people in the UK. You have confirmed my suspicion in a depth and detail that was far beyond my resources to track down, and I thank you again for it.


  10. Thank you for taking the time this subject. I have been trying to get people to engage in these stats that ONS have been highlighting for months. If it ever comes to a public enquiry I hope you get a chance to give evidence.


  11. I note that you have photoshopped the death Frame A: Medical Data with the clear intention of misleading people. Also nowhere in the WHO document does it state: “‘Always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not.’” how much more of your “evidence” is falsified?


      A- ICD-10 Cause of Death coding of COVID-19

      ‘The international rules and guideline for selecting the underlying cause of death for statistical tabulation apply when COVID-19 is reported on a death certificate but, given the intense public health requirements for data, COVID-19 is not considered as due to, or as an obvious consequence of, anything else in analogy to the coding rules applied for INFLUENZA. Further to this, there is no provision in the classification to link COVID-19 to other causes or modify its coding in any way.

      ‘With reference to section 4.2.3 of volume 2 of ICD-10, the purpose of mortality classification (coding) is to produce the most useful cause of death statistics possible. Thus, whether a sequence is listed as ‘rejected’ or ‘accepted’ may reflect interests of importance for public health rather than what is acceptable from a purely medical point of view. Therefore, always apply these instructions, whether they can be considered medically correct or not.’ (p. 8)

      Before accusing me, or anyone else, of falsifying evidence, please take the trouble, as I have, to read the document first. I do not understand what your accusation of photoshopping ‘death Frame A’ refers to, but I imagine it’s based on a similar desire to dismiss the evidence I have presented by attacking my integrity as a researcher. I have not photoshopped any of the data I have presented here, as anyone taking the trouble to look at its sources can verify.

      Far from intending to mislead people, I have presented this data as clearly as I can, with links to the source of the data, and have drawn the most logical conclusions from it I can. If you wish to produce an alternative analysis, please do. I would be interested to hear it. However, Incorrect accusations based on laziness do not constitute analysis.


  12. Thank you for this detailed, helpful and disturbing article.

    For your reference I notice a mistake in the para below the graph headed, Number of Endoscopies…..

    You reference to BHF and additional 26k deaths is correct, but this is for all deaths, they were not all heart related deaths (the linked reference that you provide explains the detail).


    1. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, the increase of 26,000 deaths was, of course, for all deaths at home, with the BHF reporting deaths from heart disease increased by 1,705 among men in England, causing the 25.9% increase. I’ve now clarified the ambiguity in my text.


    1. The global elite openly support global government, and manycynics assume this to mean by them. They also support depopulation and the end of private ownership – every globalist asset from Karl Marx to the UN to Jacinda Ardern to the World Economic Forum has favoured an end to private home ownership (“you will own nothing and you will be happy”). The onus really is on people like you to prove that the plandemic won’t further the aims of the globalists – quite difficult really, given all the gloating about this being a great opportunity for a great reset. This is my somewhat pessimistic take: it’s a bit of a worry that so many people agree with me.


    2. I know its a difficut one to answer, But then I look at other things that have happened in History by people in power to which I have no answer, mostly I think because I could not envisiage myself wanting or being capable of such things. I cannot explain why Hitler and his followers did what they did to the Jews, and the majority of German people went along with it, I don’t know why Pol Pot did what he did, Why Mass Murderers do what they do. I think what motivates some people to commit acts upon others in order to fuflfil a desire is beyond my understanding. I can only put it down to they just can, and once they get away with something and are not challenged, they push further and further, then there is a need to cover the tracks. Sometimes there is no reason or logic behind what some people do, they just do it because they can.


    3. Power. Control. It has always been about these concepts. Why is this difficult for rational, thinking people to understand? We seem to suffer from some cognitive dissonance when it comes to understanding human fallibility and motivations. Certain people are becoming ever richer. Certain people are becoming ever more powerful. Why would sharing the wealth be of interest to them? Why would the health of the “rest” be of any interest to them?


  13. Brilliant that other people have found this site. Also that when accused of “falsifying” things you can prove otherwise and that when something needs amending you do so.
    Can you find out if the inconclusive covid tests are presumed a “positive” test and included in the government figures please?


    1. I’ve written about this in more detail in the addendum to my article, Bowling for Pfizer: Who’s Behind the BioNTech Vaccine, which you can read here: But briefly, on 16 March, following the WHO’s lead, the National Health Service, in its ‘Guidance and standard operating procedure: COVID-19 virus testing in NHS laboratories’, recommended a cycle amplification threshold of 45, with anything below 40 to be regarded as a ‘confirmed’ positive.


  14. I’m afraid that your attribution of “lockdown deaths” is specious.

    Unless you have a way of disaggregating the pandemic as a “cause” of deaths from interventions as the “cause” of deaths – and I don’t see methods for doing that comprehensively outlined in this article – you’re arguably allowing a confirmation bias to infest your analytical process. You’re making a broad-scale conflation of association and causation.

    Further, attributing causation here necessarily requires a counterfactual assumption about what would have been had things been different. In other words, to say that interventions (differentially) “caused” deaths you need to know how many deaths might have occurred, and what precipitating events and conditions would have been associated with those deaths, absent interventions. Obviously, you don’t have the evidence to make such an argument. Looking at patterns of excess mortality is a window into thst discussion, but it hardly conclusive.

    This is a situation of risk assessment in a condition of high uncertainty. It should always be evaluated within that frame, imo. To argue that statistics effectively prove the efficacy of interventions, OR THE LACK THEREOF, is, imo, a breeding ground for ideologically predisposed confirmation bias. Your language through this article suggests that you have proven your case, and so there’s where you have gone wrong.. There’s nothing wrong with discussing the various uncertainties in this situation – of which there are many. But appropriate caveats should always be maintained. And a one-sided approach to uncertainty isn’t a comprehensive treatment of uncertainty. Do you suppose there are any people who died in their homes or in a nursing home from COVID but never had a COVID test – particularly early on in the pandemic? Do you suppose that there are any people who died with one or even two mild comorbidities, like borderline obesity and borderline high blood pressure, that would not likely have caused their death for many years, if at all, had they not contracted COVID?

    It’s ironic that you (correctly) discuss the the way that statistics can be used to mislead and then use statistics to make arguments which far outpace the level of certainty they rest upon.


    1. If your description of my article were accurate, you may have a point. However, I state at the start that, given the changes to how deaths are recorded, we will never know how many died from COVID-19, and I restate this several times. I also take care to distinguish between proof, facts, evidence, what it suggests, the figures they point to and what is and isn’t conclusive. It’s a common tactic when confronted with something that threatens one’s preconceptions to characterise it incorrectly then dismiss it on this false characterisation, but this does not present a reasoned refutation of the arguments I have made, merely a refusal to read what I have written. Given which, it is not I that have a confirmation bias, as you put it, but you yourself.

      If you wish to dispute the causal relationship between lockdown restrictions and excess deaths, I suggest you take it up with the Institute for Cancer Research, the Alzheimer’s Society, the British Heart Foundation, the Office for National Statistics, and the other organisations monitoring UK medical care, treatment and mortality. It is their figures that I have presented, and I have made no conflation between the causes they identify and the effects they record.

      It is not for myself or anyone else to produce a counter factual analysis of what would have happened had lockdown not been imposed, but rather the Government that imposed it. As it is, not a single one of the 360 coronavirus-justified Regulations imposing the lockdown has produced an assessment of their impacts. I have looked in considerable detail at the comparable effects of lockdowns in different countries in my article Lockdown: The Collateral Damage in the War on COVID-19, and the data is conclusive that they have no impact on stopping the spread of the virus and do enormous damage to the populations on which they are impose. I did, in fact, provide a link to 30 scientific, medical and modelling studies from around the world that reach the same conclusion, but you appeared to have missed this, too, in your eagerness to dismiss this article.

      You appear to favour rather flowery language to assume a high ground that your reading and reasoning doesn’t justify. This makes a change to the abuse and threats anyone who questions the Government narrative usually receives, but betrays the same refusal to look at the human costs of lockdown. Unlike you, though, I find nothing ironic in this refusal, which will condemn tens of thousands more people to any early death, and millions more to unemployment and financial ruin.


      1. I agree that it is now, thanks to the guidance for certification of death, impossible to quantify deaths that have been due to Covid-19 and how many have been contributed to by Mitigation Strategies. However the fact that the ONS number of “Covid Deaths” almost exactly matches their defined number of “Excess Deaths” is a help to us.
        If you are prepared to believe that everyone who died in 2020 with Covid-19 involved would otherwise have gone on to survive the year then the figures are fine. We had the “Normal” number of deaths plus 90,000 additional deaths thanks to Covid-19.
        But for every person who died with Covid-19 that you think would have died without it’s presence you have to attribute one of the “Normal” deaths to the effect of NPIs.


      2. As I write at the end of my article, the Office for National Statistics record of deaths attributed to COVID-19 does not match, exactly or loosely, the excess deaths in 2020. There were 12,734 fewer deaths from causes other than deaths attributed to COVID-19, in a year in which medical care has been withdrawn as never before, with the consequences for increased mortality reported by various organisations monitoring the medical care and health of the UK population.

        It should be clear from my article that I am not prepared to believe that everyone recorded as a COVID-19 death in 2020 would have lived, and all the evidence I present of deaths resulting from lockdown restrictions strongly suggests that I am right to do so.


  15. By pure coincidence – and it really is, Dr No had no awareness of this post until this morning – Dr No yesterday wrote a post covering similar ground on the recording and coding of cause of death, and how this can only mean covid-19 deaths counts are inflated. The problem, as most of us see it, is how to disentangle the true covid-19 deaths from the spurious, inflated and so misleading ones. It is not inconceivable, as one of Dr No’s commenters points out, that the data is irredeemably compromised, because the MCCDs (medical certificate of cause of death) themselves have been compromised, meaning we will never know – unless someone comes up with a clever way to do some forensic epidemiology.

    Dr No finds reassurance in the fact that two people analysing the data independently come to much the same conclusions – in effect, this is a form of replication, one of the pillars of science. Many of Dr No’s other posts cover similar ground to that covered here, but the one on death certification (“Ode to the death Certificate”) is here:

    PS one small correction: So far as Dr No knows, the notifiable diseases regulations only require doctors to notify the local authority proper officer of cases, including suspected cases, of notifiable diseases. These regs have no bearing on MCCDs, though of course if the certifying doctor thinks covid-19 or indeed any other infectious disease has caused or contributed to a death, then it should appear on the MCCD.


  16. Simon, I have very much appreciated your articles on this subject over the past year, and I broadly agree with your argument. The following ‘criticisms’ do not, I believe, undermine that argument but, if I am correct, should be addressed.

    1) “Under this change to legislation, medical practitioners have a statutory duty to record COVID-19 on a death certificate”

    The Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 do not appear to mention death certification. I’m not sure that recording COVID-19 on the death certificate is a statutory duty. I see that Dr No has also picked up on this.

    2) ONS announced…“the disease merely has to be ‘mentioned’ anywhere on the death certificate”

    ONS releases have, for quite some time now, distinguished between COVID-19 ‘mentioned’ and COVID-19 as ‘underlying cause of death’, and your link confirms this is current practice.

    3) You then describe and link to WHO guidelines on certification and classification of COVID-19 as cause of death.

    “…if COVID-19 is the ‘suspected’ or ‘probable’ or ‘assumed’ cause of death, it must always be recorded, in Part 1 of the death certificate, as the ‘underlying cause’ of death.”

    Yet ONS has issued Guidance for doctors completing Medical Certificates of Cause of Death in England and Wales (for use during the emergency period only) which seems likely to be the key document determining how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates in England and Wales. The ONS guidelines do not appear to require that COVID-19 always be recorded as the underlying cause of death.


    1. I’ll try to reply to your points, Misa.

      1. The statutory changes that made COVID-19 a notifiable disease and SARS-CoV-2 a causative agent have had two key changes. In my article I write that the medical practitioner filling in the death certificate has a statutory duty to list COVID-19 on the death certificate. As you say, this is not stated in the Health Protection Regulations legislation. My basis to saying this is the article, to which I provided the link, by Dr. John Lee, a former professor of pathology and NHS consultant pathologist, which he published in March 2020, and in which he wrote:

      ‘If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease’. So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.

      ‘Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.

      ‘In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate — contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind. There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.’

      You can read Dr. Lee’s article here:

      The second change from making COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-1, respectively, a notifiable disease and causative agent is stated here in this governmental document on notifiable diseases: This is that, having reported a death attributed to a notifiable disease to Public Health England, public authorities are able to enact the powers conferred by the amendments to the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. I’ve discussed this, and the legality of the blanket application of these powers, in my article here: It’s under these powers, which are consequent upon the changes to disease taxonomy, that lockdown restrictions have been imposed.

      2. In its commentaries on the figures it published, the Office for National Statistics does, as you say, distinguish between COVID-19 being mentioned anywhere on the death certificate and it being present as the ‘underlying cause’ of death, mostly in its very detailed discussions of how its figures are compiled. The ONS is pretty rigorous on methodology, given the data it has been given. But the figures its publishes in the datasets to which I link are all based on the former criteria. These are the tables which record the overall deaths in England and Wales in a given year, the deaths from respiratory diseases other than COVID-19, and the deaths attributed to COVID-19, the criteria for which is that the disease is mentioned anywhere on the death certificate.

      3. I’m not clear to what guidance you are referring, as you have not provided a link so I can read it, but I doubt the Office for National Statistics would be advising doctors and other medical practitioners on how to fill in death certificates. The head of the ONS, Professor Sir Ian Diamond, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, but I would imagine that’s outside their remit. While it’s within the advisory remit of the World Health Organisation. I would imagine that the most determining guidelines would come from Public Health England, as they have, for example, in setting a cycle threshold of 40 for determine when a RT-PCR test is positive. I’ve discussed this in the addendum to my article on the Pfizer vaccine,


      1. Simon,

        Thank you for your response.

        1. It certainly appears that the effect of making COVID-19 notifiable, along with the effects of the current climate, and widespread testing, ensures that it will be recorded on death certificates in very many situations where another disease, like flu, would not. It’s everything short of a statutory requirement, and it may be that there are other obligations upon doctors completing death certificates, of which I’m unaware, which do make it an absolute requirement. But if it is not strictly a statutory requirement, you might in future find a better way of expressing this.

        2. Point taken. I would add that the normally rigorous ONS has been a bit cheeky (in the commentaries you mention) with its comparisons of underlying cause of death for ‘COVID-19’ and ‘Pneumonia and Influenza’. In fact influenza is not at all often recorded, but where it is recorded it generally ends up as the underlying cause. It is pneumonia deaths which make up the overwhelming majority of this category, and the way pneumonia comes to be recorded as the underlying cause has changed dramatically over the years as selection rules have been modified. Of course, it seems most likely that a very significant proportion of COVID-19 death certificates will also mention pneumonia, as your example suggests, and there for be counted as deaths ‘with’ (not ‘of’) ‘Pneumonia and Influenza’.

        3. Apologies for failing to include a link to the guidelines I mentioned here. The guidance Completing a medical certificate of cause of death (MCCD) was issued on 31 March by HM Passport Office, in conjunction with the ONS. I believe (but would be happy to be corrected) that these guidelines, and not those from the WHO, are the ones which would have been communicated to doctors in England and Wales. They are quite similar but, as you will note, differ from WHO guidelines in places.

        I hope this is helpful, rather than merely pedantic. Your essays have been among the few bright spots of this whole episode, and I’ve been hugely impressed by the breadth and depth of your research.


  17. Doctors are using the clinical frailty scale to put people onto end of life care in hospital instead of treating them. Then covid is being put down on the death certificate as cause of death. This whole thing is a national scandal and the media and medical profession are complicit.


    1. Sarah. My sister is in hospital recovering from pneumonia/Covid. She’s 50 years old and is severely debilitated from MS. She can barely swallow, let alone talk or move any part of her body. Anyway, she’s lucky enough to live in her own home, and to not have acquired Covid last spring. Had that have happened, I am sure she would have been put on some kind of ‘pathway’. She would have been written off.

      As it was, she only required an oxygen mask and a course of antibiotics.

      Having talked to a neighbour whose 98 year old mother died ‘of Covid’ in a nursing home, I was left with a feeling that many people were just ‘written off’. They were sedated, had fluids stopped and were left to die.


  18. I think this paragraph is incorrect;

    “Until then, the National Health Service records of ‘COVID-19 deaths by age-group and pre-existing condition’ show that, as of 20 January, 2021 — so three weeks into the new year — 61,414 of the 64,111 deaths in England attributed to COVID-19 (the actual record says ‘tested positive for COVID-19’, which is medically meaningless), over 95 per cent of the total, had at least one pre-existing health condition. Of the remaining 2,697 in which a pre-existing health condition didn’t appear on their death certificate, just 486 were under 60 years of age in 11 months of this ‘epidemic’.”

    The NHS figures and graphs for pre-existing conditions comes from NHS data, not from death certificates. The ONS comes from death certificates but the NHS doesn’t. The graphs that follow then are figures from NHS data, not death certificates.


    1. The point I’m making in this paragraph is that, according to NHS data, over 95% of people whose deaths in English hospitals were attributed to COVID-19 were listed in that data as having at least 1 pre-existing health condition, with most having 2. Since you have not provided a link to a document stating that the NHS compiles its data from some other source that death certificates, I don’t understand what the basis of your assertion is. What is this alternative but parallel means of recording the deaths of patients that is not a death certificate? Since it is medical staff in hospitals that conduct the RT-PCR test pre- or post-mortem and fill in the death certificate, I’d be very surprised if such an alternative source of NHS data exists, or what purpose it would serve. Even if such a means does exist, I don’t understand why this would make my paragraph being ‘wrong’.

      As I write in my article, I’m quoting these figures and reproducing these tables precisely because the Office for National Statistics has not published any data on the pre-existing health conditions of people whose deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 since July. If you doubt the validity of the NHS data, you’re welcome to take it up with them. I’m merely quoting it as evidence towards my thesis that changes to taxonomy, recording, protocol and testing have served to attribute a large percentage of these 95% of patients with pre-existing health conditions to COVID-19. If you think that is ‘wrong’, I’d be interested to hear why, but your comment doesn’t do so.


  19. Non-lockdown Sweden had 6600 total excess deaths between March and December 2020 compared to the previous 5 years. Adjusting for population UK should have had 45000 total excess deaths.


    1. Sweden also had a very soft flu season in 2019 with total No. of deaths less than 88.000 (the lowest since 1977). Hardly surprising that a following year with a more severe type of flu did a lot of damage. But few people are willing or able to put things into perspective, and the media hype does not help. In 1993 we also had about the same number of people dead as in 2020 – with a much smaller population …


  20. Fantastic reading. So informative and balanced. It is just so depressing as to everyone’s reaction to this madness. I am so alone. No one really sees what is going on, apart from a few people i know. I watch utube and so i am very used to getting the “real” truth which is happening around the world. However, it seems many of these media warriors are slowly being silenced. I just find it hard to believe the directionour future is moving towards.

    The scale of this set up (if not a mistake) really should make us very frightened. The world i thought i lived in is unrecognisable.


  21. Thank you for replying, it makes a pleasant change for someone to take the time.
    The more we find out the more it frightens you, at least there is somewhere where people seem to be able to write about differences as well as agreeing without any verbal nastiness.


  22. Good digging. I smelt a rat about March 2020 when they started going on about ‘died with’. My mmediate thought was, that’s a fudge, where has that recording protocol come from and was it used in the flu epidemic of 1968 (so we could make like-for-like comparisons, maybe). And the second rat was when they started getting tearfully hysterical about people in care homes, and apparently society must be trashed to keep them alive for a bit longer. My immediate thought was, have they ever been to care homes and seen the state of people in them? In the main, not apple cheeked grannies with many good years ahead of them, The smell of p*ss in the hallway, and the keening of th demented says enough. Flu/pneumonia used to be known as the old man’s friend, a relatively gentlle way of ending a life that was effectively finished, not a tragedy to be resisted at all costs – especially not at the costs we are being faced with!


  23. ASH and others including Misa and Elias – in the spirit of constructive commentary, and posted as a separate reply rather than a reply to each and every comment:

    The notifiable disease regs do not *require* suspected or test positive covid be entered on a MCCD. Dr Lee’s statement, which you relied on, that “if any of these patients dies, staff will *have* to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate” is simply not true. It also contains another implied error, that “staff” complete death certificates (MCCDs) – it is not any member of staff, only a doctor can complete an MCCD (and by the bye there were some interesting changes to the requirements on that as well).

    Dr No believes there are two main reasons for the frenzy of putting covid on the death certificate. The first is called hot stuff bias, a bias that operates when a disease is “hot”, or current. It naturally comes to mind. This effect is exacerbated by the frequency of PCR testing, which in turn leads to the second related hammer/nail effect: when every second test you do is a covid test, then every death starts to look like a covid death.

    Misa has linked to the official guidance on completing MCCDs, which has ONS and, bizarrely, HM Passport Office on its letterhead (this is a bureaucratic accident: “The General Register Office for England and Wales, which is part of Her Majesty’s Passport Office, is responsible for legislation relating to the registration of births, marriages, civil partnerships and deaths), and it is this document, issued a number of times early on in the pandemic, that most doctors will rely on, either directly, or through hearsay, when completing MCCDs. This is the document that clearly shows, in the example at the top of page 6, covid trumping cancer (albeit colon cancer, but who is to say the patient didn’t have widespread secondaries etc etc) and furthermore, the (hypothetical) doctor completing that MCCD clearly intended colon cancer to be the underlying cause of death, by placing it on the lowest line in Part I.

    It’s the same guidance that details the relaxation in the strict rules on when a doctor can and can’t (and so has to refer the death to a coroner) complete a death certificate. There was a fuzzying up of who the ‘attending doctor’ is, and a clear statement that *any* doctor can complete the MCCD, even one who know very little about the deceased. The scope for garnering hearsay reports through leading questions that the patient had a terrible cough/raging fever/went blue/it must have been the covid what did it doc are obvious, and in keeping with the apocryphal tale of the Berkshire coroner who on hearing that an otherwise apparently well young woman who suddenly dropped down dead (and so was a coroner’s case) might have had a cough, was only stopped from signing her off as a covid death by raised eyebrows at the local hospital.

    The real challenge is to identify the extent of the over-counting of covid deaths. The starting point is the reductions in mortality from other causes. ONS (and PHE) are rather opaque on this, but Scotland are more transparent, as can be seen in Figure 4 (hospital deaths in particular) on page 10 of this weekly report: The chart doesn’t get included in every weekly report, for instance, it is not in the week 3 report.


  24. Thank you Simon for your dilligent and rigorous analysis of the data throughout this assault on our democracy and freedom. Many strange things have been going on over the last twelve months but one that has really struck me is the propensity of the left/liberal media to constantly disseminate and amplify the government’s fear-porn and propaganda. I suppose this has been broadly in line with Labour’s policy of often demanding harsher and more stringent lockdown measures than those proposed by the government. Recent pieces by Nick Cohen and George Monbiot in the Guardian and Observer seem to equate skepticism about lockdown policy, actual covid death numbers and the need for endless vaccines with some kind of adherence to, or sympathy with, far right politics or 5G microchip conspiracies like those espoused by David Icke. There seems to be an enforced consensus in all of the media that everything the government is telling us is 100% accurate, which seems odd given the political realities of the past 20 years or so. As a result I find myself cancelling my Guardian and Observer subcriptions as well as my membership of the Labour party. The minority of us who favour accuracy over sentiment, information over propaganda and freedom over house arrest are going to have to work together whatever our political positions may have been previously I suspect.


  25. I’ve lost all respect for my GP in the last year because, using the covid excuse, they basically pulled up the drawbridge and stopped taking care of their patients. My mother eventually managed to get a face to face doctor’s appointment and came back saying the doctor had a very good suntan. As a retired nurse she’s well aware that the GP gets paid for every patient on their books.
    I’ve spent the whole year arguing with people online and they all repeat the same pro mask, pro lockdown mantras. I’ve dropped more lifelong friends over this whole thing than I ever have before too because I think if somebody can’t see what’s going on, even after having it pointed out to them, I just have no interest in them going forwards.
    My elderly parents have just had their first jab, basically for the reasons you’ve outlined above. They’ve been scared into it by the mainstream media. No doubt I’ll be offered mine soon but hell will have to freeze over before I’ll accept it.
    Thanks for speaking the truth. I’ve just shared this on Facebook. No doubt, their ‘independent fact checkers’ will decide it’s fake news and take it down.


  26. This is an excellent comprehensive summary.

    There may be a date error in this line “In January 2020, the Office for National Statistics published ‘Deaths registered by place of occurrence’,”?

    The sabotaging of articles and platforms continues, with a frightening amount of credible material being pulled from the Internet. I would recommend all those who resist this grim pantomime of lockdown to engage with Gab and with Telegram, as this is where I have been able to find uncensored debate groups, and to meet people (both virtually and recently face to face) who also resist the indoctrination. This has been a huge relief mentally for me.


  27. Since the beginning of the present epidemic I have been asking, without getting a reply, why the new disease has been treated so differently from the way the Hong Kong flu was treated in 1968. I am glad to see Bill mention this most recent epidemic.
    Neil Jefferson decries the equation by journalists of doubt about the need for restrictions and vaccinations and about the number of deaths with belief in crazy theories about the source of the disease and support for ‘far-right’ policies. Likewise it does not follow that those who oppose the Government and the rest of the Establishment in the matter of Covid-19 should refuse to be vaccinated. Every winter of my life I have suffered from coughs and colds – till this winter. The reason I have been so far free of these is that contrary to my wishes I have been forced out of the company of others: the usual city crowds have been dissolved. I received an invitation to be vaccinated on the first of February and was inoculated with the Astra-Zeneca vaccine the next day. I have thus received social benefit at the cost of a slight soreness in my left arm for four days. There is a risk that some of those who refuse vaccination, at least the first round or two, will estrange themselves from their friends and family and thus exacerbate the loneliness that the Government has inflicted on them already.


    1. It is not those who, as I will, refuse vaccination that will estrange themselves and exacerbate their loneliness; it is those who, by accepting vaccination, will allow the Government to impose it and other restrictions as a condition of access to public life. It is people like you, Adrian, who by your previous comments on my articles should know far better about the consequences of your actions, who do the estranging and exacerbation. It’s very worrying that, even someone like you, who has read most of what I’ve written about this crisis, would still go ahead with such a selfish act. I will continue to expose what those consequences are, though, in the hope that other readers will act with a stronger sense of community and commitment to resisting the programmes and regulations of the UK biosecurity state.


  28. I think this is one of the best articles I have seen on providing analysis and breakdown of the available data. Since this entire thing began I have continually asked why the data provided by the Governemnt and MSM has not drilled down into deaths with other illness present and what those are, and age group. I can only guess now seeing the stats, that to be open in provision would give evidence to the lies they are continuing to pedal. The Government got into this mess by copuing China and Italy. My belief is that they know they completely over reacted, and now they have to try and get out of the mess without taking responsibility for their actions. This has created a culture of cover up and protection, there are too many careers both medical, scientific as well as political at stake, plus of course the media. Hence the collusion in lack of transparancy , and censorship. Can you imagine the fall out if the MSM reported these figures?, the backlash would be terrific, jobs, careers, reputations and income would be irreperably damaged. That is why the cover up is so great. The drive now has to be to get as many vaccinations done as possible before Spring when respiritory virus “dies out”, that way they can claim victory. The question is though how do they reverse the commands regarding recording of COvid deaths?because if they stick with the current rules then we will never be free of Covid. They must know this, so something has to change, or perhaps it won’t and the life we exist in today is the future, well at least for the next 4 years.
    Thank you dear Author


    1. Once the labs start running pcr at 25-30 cycles (as January WHO advice), rather than the ridiculous 40+, then a v big chunk of “deaths with Covid” will disappear by magic. As I understand it each cycle doubles the sample material, so 40 cycles means 2^40, an insane level of amplification.

      Or they will maybe switch to Lateral Flow tests, similar collapse in “positive” results !?


  29. I first flagged the issue of death recording in my blog last year – at the end of April – in my blog ( – look for the Rye Observer Covid-19 update No 16). It appeared that the official advice to pathology departments was that if Covid-19 was on a death certificate then there was no need to perform a post-mortem. Which means, of course, that it is impossible to prove, one way or the other, that a death is due to Covid-19 or with it (leave aside that Covid-19 refers, strictly, to the nasty disease, and not to a positive test for the virus SARS-CoV-2). The only way to confirm causality is to find a heavy viral load at a PM. Otherwise, as set out in this piece, it is conjecture.

    It is thus highly likely that the numbers of deaths attributed to Covid-19 have been overstated. It has also been invalid to compare numbers in calendar months because you are not comparing like with like. For a better comparison of excess deaths with, say, the flu epidemic of 2008-9 you should compare November to January of that epidemic with March to May of this one. And international comparisons of rates are invalid because different countries have different criteria for recording “Covid” deaths, let alone the absurdity of allowing 45 PCR test cycles when over 35 will result in junk data. In Wales, according to a recent Freedom of Information response, they are using – 45 cycles! We don’t have a figure for other parts of the UK so it’s possible, given there are so many different labs, that some are running junk cycles and some are not. So there is potential inaccuracy in the NHS’s internal data and comparisons..

    Lastly the international comparison of “cases” is also invalid; firstly because testing regimes are different and secondly because quoting absolute numbers takes no account of the numbers of tests being done. Suppose you find, for instance, 20,000 “cases” – which are not cases, but positive tests – but have tested 400,000 people. Then you find, shock horror, that you have 40,000 “cases”. If you only tested 400,000 that’s bad, but if you tested 800,000, that is exactly the same percentage. One thing Trump got right. Test more people, you will find more cases. If you now plot the percentage of positive tests over time you still get peaks, but the actual variation is much, much less. Look at You can add your own countries. Now the differences pale into almost insignificance.

    Lies, damn lies indeed…


  30. Stumbled onto your blog and it’s a tremendous trove of pain-stakingly detailed analysis, bravo. It should serve as a blueprint (with credit, or at least a grant!?) for any objective journalist, or lawyer… alas.


  31. We would love to forward your excellent article to doubters of our acquaintance (you never know!) but we are given pause by this, in the second para of your conclusion:

    “a virus that presents no threat to 80 per cent of the population”

    We don’t want anyone to run away with the notion that ‘SARS-COV-2’ presents a(n unspecified) threat to 1 in 5 of the population but that is the unfortunate implication.


    1. Yes, you may have a point. 22.5% of the UK population is over 60, which is the cut-off point the NHS has used for deaths attributed to COVID-19 in English hospitals of patients with and without a pre-existing health condition. However, that doesn’t mean that COVID-19 presents a threat to everyone over 59. But the data I presented in this article points so overwhelmingly towards the conclusions I draw from it that I didn’t want to open myself to accusations of exaggeration from the COVID-faithful. All the conclusions I draw are very conservative. Even if you catch the virus, the infection fatality rate is 0.23% across the whole population, and for those under 70 years of age 0.05%.


  32. Summarise and what else we can do

    Thank you, Simon, for your excellent, thorough, forensically detailed, article. A truly epic piece of research. BUT and this is with enormous respect to your efforts, it’s taken me 2 or 3 reads over a period of a week. And I am completely onside.

    I and my group of friends have been sceptical since the start of this. We have assiduously read, researched and discussed the subject endlessly among ourselves. Yet although we circulated your article amongst our group, I suspect that fewer than a handful will have read it.

    We need to summarise your work be summarised and reduce it to bite-sized nuggets, for those whose mental digestion has been compromised by snippets and headlines from social media and the main stream media. I’m sorry to say, but it needs to be ‘dumbed down’ to get attention.

    If I may, I will attempt to do that in the form of a summary, with, of course, a link to your full article.

    You and your readers and commenters may be interested in our grassroots campaign to get Back to Normal (, with a small army of volunteers, delivering anti-lockdown postcards door to door. Our aim is to reach 1 million households throughout the UK and we are now, at 350,000, over a third of the way to our target.

    It may look rather analogue in a digital age (although we have the usual website and social media) , but it is one way of flying under the radar, getting the arguments to people whose only source of news is the TV and newspapers. It’s getting out and ‘doing something’ and may even be more therapeutic than raging at home at one’s keyboard. Finally it is a way of meeting fellow sceptics and keeping sane. The liberties that we have lost in the last few months, will not be restored easily.

    If any of your readers / commenters would like to join or support us, or indeed spread the word online, we can spread Simon’s research further.

    Marion – “ Back to Normal”


  33. Thanks for this forensic deep dive into the numbers. The disparity between the official numbers and the global reaction was the impetus for starting our blog back in April 2020:
    In the interests of time – we are currently working on digging out another aspect of what’s going on – we have taken the liberty of writting a short intro to your post and included it in full on our blog and asked our readers to share it. We obviously give clear links and appreciation to your blog for the post. If there is anything you need us to change, please let us know and we will make the changes.
    Thanks again for your exceptional post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s