New:

Description:

Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic

www.researchgate.net/publication/377266988_Excess_…

Citation: Wilson Sy (2024) Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Medical & Clinical Research, 9(2), 01-21.

Macro-data during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom (UK) are shown to have significant data anomalies and inconsistencies with existing explanations.

England 2020

UK spike in deaths,

wrongly attributed to COVID-19 in April 2020,

was not due to SARS-CoV-2 virus,

which was largely absent,

but was due to the widespread use of Midazolam injections,

which were statistically very highly correlated (coefficient over 90 percent) with excess deaths in all regions of England during 2020.

Importantly

Excess deaths remained elevated following mass vaccination in 2021,

but were statistically uncorrelated to COVID injections,

while remaining significantly correlated to Midazolam injections.

The widespread and persistent use of Midazolam in UK suggests a possible policy of systemic euthanasia.

Unlike Australia, where assessing the statistical impact of COVID injections on excess deaths is relatively straightforward,

UK excess deaths were closely associated with the use of Midazolam and other medical intervention.

The UK iatrogenic pandemic

Caused by euthanasia deaths from Midazolam and also,

likely caused by COVID injections,

www.researchgate.net/publication/374261986_Early_I…

but their relative impacts are difficult to measure from the data, due to causal proximity of euthanasia.

Global investigations of COVID-19 epidemiology,

based only on the relative impacts of COVID disease and vaccination,

may be inaccurate, due to the neglect of significant confounding factors in some countries.

Another new video. Here it is:

Description:

Original video link
parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/168f642a-5708-4b1a-9…
Hansard link
hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-04-18/debates/9…
We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic.
In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention. The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected. That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
We know that there are adverse effects from the vaccination. Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested.
I am afraid, is that the MHRA is significantly deficient in the way it operates. The Cumberlege report—this was referenced in the earlier debate—raised concerns about the way treatments are regulated and licensed that have not yet been addressed.
I am afraid that through the covid episode many of the same concerns were manifested in relation to the vaccines.
We now know that the MHRA knew about the effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine on blood clotting as early as February 2021, but issued a warning about that only some months later—in April, a month after other countries had suspended the AZ vaccine. The MHRA also knew about the prevalence of heart problems and myocarditis in February 2021 but did nothing about it until June that year. In the intervening time, millions of people were vaccinated without the knowledge that the MHRA had. As has been said, we found out recently that Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There has been very little comeback against it for that, and no meaningful fine. As we heard, just a few thousands pounds were charged in expenses.
The regulatory system that oversees the pharmaceutical companies is surely deeply conflicted, not least due to being partly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it was set up to represent.
It is significant and of concern that they have made so much money out of the vaccines, and so far do not appear to be making due recompense for some of the acknowledged harms— I am not talking about the wilder claims—that their vaccines have been responsible for. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether the indemnities against civil and Government action that the Government awarded to the vaccine manufacturers at the beginning of the production process still apply if it transpires that the companies misled the Government and the public about the safety and efficacy of their product?
The inquiry has been mentioned. There are so many unanswered questions and apparent red flags that it surprises me that the media and Parliament are not more up in arms about excess deaths.
I am surprised that more attention is not being paid to this question.
The fact is that this scandal—if it is a scandal—suits no one in high places in our country.
It is true that we have an inquiry, but as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, surely it is asking the wrong questions.
It is very concerning that the module looking at the vaccination programme has been postponed.
It strikes me that the inquiry is essentially asking the wrong questions; it is really just asking why we did not do more lockdowns quicker. That seems to be its prevailing question for the experts—not whether the whole response was the right one, and crucially, in the light of what we now know, whether the final response of a mass vaccination programme was as safe and effective as was claimed.
We are rightly proud in this country of the effectiveness, speed and operation of the vaccine production and roll-out. It was a triumph of effective collaboration between Government and the private sector. The operation of the roll-out was a victory that all people can acknowledge, but it is not enough to say that the roll-out was done well. Was it done safely? Did it need to be done on the scale on which it was done? Particularly, did young people need to be vaccinated at all? We all remember Kate Bingham and others saying early on that the vaccine was only for the older population. These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said: [..]

From official channels:

We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem. I have been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I have rejected those vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not: in fact, I am double vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to tell when people are neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but are against a product that does not work and causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.

I am proud to be one of the few Members of Parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame that there are not more Members with a science background in this place; maybe if there were, there would be less reliance on Whips Office briefings and more independent research, and perhaps less group-think. I say to the House in all seriousness that this debate and others like it are going to be pored over by future generations, who will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns were disregarded, and that those raising them were gaslit, smeared and vilified.

One does not need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal, which is exactly what is going on. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations—it no longer does so, and no one will explain why. The public have a right to that data. There have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what is called record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis. That would allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination, and settle once and for all the issue of whether those experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.

Far more extensive and detailed data has already been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like in the Post Office scandal. Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change to the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It is now incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023. Under the

Toggle showing location of Column 505
old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%—long after the pandemic was over, at a time when we would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. Some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.

Shocking things happened during the pandemic response. In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them. A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country, who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.

11 hours ago:

Description:

Professor Angus Dalgleish, (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists, Fellow of Medical Science.)

Professor Dalgleish is a highly experienced doctor, physician, medical teacher, medical author and researcher with over 500 primary research publications.

He was also a pioneering researcher into HIV/AIDS.

Here we discuss the recently observed changes in cancer presentations and deaths. Some of the discussion considers this research paper noting excess cancer deaths in Japan.

Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjus…

Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. (April 08, 2024) Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Cureus 16(4): e57860. DOI 10.7759/cureus.57860

Conclusions

Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine.

These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ER?-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination,

rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown.

Researchers have reported that the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine may pose the risk of development and progression of cancer.

Several case reports have described cancer developing or worsening after vaccination and discussed possible causal links between cancer and mRNA-LNP vaccination.

Description:

Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan

www.cureus.com/articles/196275-increased-age-adjus…

Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. (April 08, 2024) Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Cureus 16(4): e57860. DOI 10.7759/cureus.57860

Conclusions

Statistically significant increases in age-adjusted mortality rates of all cancer and some specific types of cancer, namely, ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate, lip/oral/pharyngeal, pancreatic, and breast cancers, were observed in 2022 after two-thirds of the Japanese population had received the third or later dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine.

These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ER?-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination,

rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown.

Researchers have reported that the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-LNP vaccine may pose the risk of development and progression of cancer.

Several case reports have described cancer developing or worsening after vaccination and discussed possible causal links between cancer and mRNA-LNP vaccination.

Details of the paper

No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020).

However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses,

and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022.

During the COVID-19 pandemic

Excess deaths including cancer have become a concern in Japan

Study aimed to evaluate how age-adjusted mortality rates (AMRs) for different types of cancer in Japan changed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022).

Official statistics from Japan,

used to compare observed annual and monthly AMRs,

with predicted rates based on pre- pandemic (2010-2019) figures

In 2020

(first year of the pandemic)

Significant deficit mortality for all causes, and no excess mortality for all cancers.

In 2021

Significant excess mortality of 2.1% for all causes,

and 1.1% for all cancers.

In 2022

Excesses mortality, 9.6%

2.1% for all cancers

Number of excess deaths 115,799

Number of excess cancer deaths, 7,162

Lung, colorectal, stomach, pancreatic, and liver cancer

Accounted for 61% of deaths from all cancers.

AMRs for the four cancers with the most deaths showed a decreasing trend until the first year of the pandemic in 2020,

but the rate of decrease slowed in 2021 and 2022.

Since February 2021, the mRNA-lipid nanoparticle (mRNA-LNP) vaccine has been available for emergency use,

and is recommended for all aged six months and older

As of March 2023

80% of the Japanese population had received first and second doses,

68% had received third dose,

45% had received fourth dose

Excess deaths from causes other than COVID-19 have been reported in various countries, including deaths from cancer,

and Japan is no exception

Japan, good data

Large population of 123 million

Availability of official statistics

80% accuracy rate of death certificates according to autopsy studies

Vaccination rates by age group, the websites of the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare

Discussion

All cancer deaths: A statistically significant excess emerged in 2021 and increased further in 2022.

In addition, significant excess monthly mortality was observed after August 2021,

whereas mass vaccination of the general population began around April 2021.

There were excess trends in cancer deaths across most age groups.

The significant increases in mortalities for six specific cancer types were unlikely to be explained by a shortage of healthcare services.

The description:

Pfizer, bringing discredit to pharmaceutical industry
www.pmcpa.org.uk/media/cwvkqvyz/3741-case-report-2…

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/06/pfizer-breache…

Senior executives used social media to promote an “unlicensed” Covid vaccine.

Pfizer found to have breached the regulatory code five times,

Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA)

Pharmaceutical watchdog,

relates to a complaint about a message posted on twitter

November 2020 by senior Pfizer employees.

COMPLAINT
the complainant alleged that it turned out that such misbehaviour was even more widespread than they had thought, extended right to the top of their UK operation and was apparently continuing to this very day.

PANEL RULING
The Panel noted Pfizer’s submission that on further investigation into this complaint four other Pfizer UK colleagues, including another senior colleague in the UK organisation, had re-tweeted the same post.
The Panel queried whether a social media platform, such as Twitter was the appropriate forum to share such information.
The Panel noted the tweet contained limited information regarding the efficacy of the vaccine candidate with no safety information provided.
On the balance of probabilities, it was likely that the Pfizer UK employee’s connections would include UK members of the public as well as UK health professionals.
The Panel noted that the tweet clearly referred to the outcome of the Pfizer and BioNTech’s vaccine being developed to protect against COVID-19.
The Panel noted that Clause 3.1 prohibited the promotion of a medicine prior to the grant of its marketing authorisation.
They must not mislead either directly or by implication, by distortion, exaggeration or undue emphasis. Material must be sufficiently complete to enable the recipient to form their own opinion of the therapeutic value of the medicine.
It must not be stated that a product has no adverse reactions, toxic hazards or risks of addiction or dependency. The Panel noted the tweet made no reference to adverse events and was therefore concerned that important safety information relating to the vaccine candidate was not provided and ruled a breach of Clause 7.9 of the 2019 Code as acknowledged by Pfizer.
The Panel noted Pfizer stated that the senior employee whose re-tweet was the subject of this complaint had completed the social media training module in October 2019.
Activity which was clearly outside of company policy had not been taken down or deleted.

‘Unlicensed medicine proactively disseminated’

“unlicensed medicine being proactively disseminated on Twitter to health professions and members of the public in the UK”.

Pfizer UK spokesman

“fully recognises and accepts the issues highlighted by this PMCPA ruling”,

“deeply sorry”.

Pfizer

‘Accidental and unintentional’

Sixth time Pfizer has been reprimanded by the regulator over its promotion of the Covid-19 vaccine.

Ben Kingsley, UsForThem

“It’s astonishing how many times Pfizer’s senior executives have been found guilty of serious regulatory offences – in this case including the most serious offence of all under the UK Code of Practice.

“Yet the consequences for Pfizer and the individuals concerned continue to be derisory. This hopeless system of regulation for a multi-billion dollar life and death industry has become a sham, in dire need of reform.”

The description of the video (Google suppresses the topic):

The spike protein exhibits pathogenic characteristics

www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2024/april/long-covid-suffe…

Multiple studies have shown an increased risk of myocarditis after vaccination with mRNA encoding SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

mRNA vaccines can result in spike protein expression in

Muscle tissue

Lymphatic system

Cardiomyocytes

Other cells after entry into the circulation.

There is concern that COVID-19 vaccination per se might contribute to long COVID,

giving rise to the colloquial term ‘Long Vax(x)’

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35084966/

The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 exhibits pathogenic characteristics and is a possible cause of post-acute sequelae,

after SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccines utilise a modified, stabilised prefusion spike protein that might share similar toxic effects with its viral counterpart.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38024037/

Not the natural Uridine

Uracil is one of the four nucleobases in RNA

Adenine, cytosine, guanine

The Critical Contribution of Pseudouridine to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8600071/

Both consisted of N1-methyl-pseudouridine-modified mRNA encoding the SARS-COVID-19 Spike protein and were delivered with a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) formulation

A possible association between COVID-19 vaccination and the incidence of POTS has been demonstrated in a cohort of 284,592 COVID-19-vaccinated individuals

Postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS) is when your heart rate increases very quickly after getting up from sitting or lying down.

www.nhs.uk/conditions/postural-tachycardia-syndrom…

Recipients of two or more injections of the mRNA vaccines display a class switch to IgG4 antibodies.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37243095/

Abnormally high levels of IgG4

Might cause autoimmune diseases

Promote cancer growth

Autoimmune myocarditis

Other IgG 4-related diseases

There are clear implications for vaccine boosting where these and similar observations,

relating to COVID-19 vaccination and the incidence of long COVID-like symptoms are substantiated,

adding further to public health officials’ concerns.

Understanding the persistence of viral mRNA,

and viral protein and their cellular pathological effects after vaccination with and without infection is clearly required.

Because COVID-19 vaccines were approved without long-term safety data and might cause immune dysfunction,

it is perhaps premature to assume that past SARS-CoV-2 infection is the sole common factor in long COVID.

Millions worldwide experience post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC or long COVID)

Although the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other health agencies in Australia do not survey the prevalence of long COVID, it is estimated that it affects hundreds of thousands

Long COVID is a heterogeneous disease with variable cardiac, pulmonary, haematological and neurological involvement

There is no consensus on what causes lingering COVID-19 symptoms long after the acute infection has cleared.

Often unable to secure a diagnosis, patients are wont to seek multiple serial medical opinions, frequently being told their condition is due to anxiety or post-pandemic mental issues.

The median duration of long COVID symptoms is five months, but 10% of patients still experience symptoms at 12 months.

Fatigue, shortness of breath and difficulty concentrating are reported at least up to two years after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

It is still too early to say whether some individuals with long COVID might never recover.

Long COVID patients present elevated inflammatory biomarkers,

(eg interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor-?)

Those subscribing to long COVID digital support groups report months of frustration at not being listened to, finding the health system woefully inadequate, with few primary or secondary care professionals knowing enough to offer much.

The outcome for some of those experiencing long COVID is self-prescribed medication using over-the-counter remedies and dietary changes based on potentially conflicting or misleading online information.

Some speak of a substantial proportion of their income being used in this way.

In Australia, an estimated 240,000 of those with long COVID no longer work full time.

Work absenteeism might significantly impact the nation’s economy, as in the UK.

In the US, long COVID has been declared a national emergency.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36219031/

Reduced to working part time to cope with unwellness, those with long COVID commonly report having to wait a year or more before receiving a diagnosis.