Introduction About Site Map

RSS 2 Feed RSS 2 Feed

Main Page | Blog Index

Saturday, May 11th, 2024, 8:44 am

[UK Health Crisis] Young Deaths in Week 16 2019: 320. Young Deaths in Week 16 2024 (New Numbers): 394. That’s a Fact. Deaths Increased by 23.1% Among Young People. It’s Statistically Significant.

Related and recent: UK Deaths Rose About 20%, AstraZeneca Withdraws Its COVID-19 Vaccine | Week 16 2019: 9,025 Deaths in England and Wales. Now? 11,877. An Increase of 2,852 for the Week Alone! A ’9/11? Per Week is the ‘New Normal’?

I AM defining “young” as the age bracket 0-44 and compare official government data from 2019 (5 years ago) and the latest, i.e. from this year (same week). 2019 total deaths:

2019 young deaths

See totals.

We now have new data for the same week in 2024:

These types of planned revisions should not be confused with errors in released statistics, which are genuine mistakes. Such mistakes occur rarely and, when they do happen, corrections are made in a timely manner, announced and clearly explained to users in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (Principle 2, Practice 7).

Compare the following totals (same age range):


So that’s more than 23% increase in deaths (among young people).

The data does not lie.

Thursday, May 9th, 2024, 2:40 pm

Week 16 2019: 9,025 Deaths in England and Wales. Now? 11,877. An Increase of 2,852 for the Week Alone! A ’9/11′ Per Week is the ‘New Normal’?

I WISH this was only a joke or science fiction, but these are people’s lives. Each death is a tragedy to a lot of people.

A few hours ago ONS released the latest mortality numbers. It’s rather shocking as it shows a truly massive increase in deaths. For the prior week we saw ~20% increase in deaths and now, based on the official numbers, we’re looking at 32% increase in deaths. If medicine improves over time and birth rates are low here, then 5 years passing should not result in such a surge in deaths.

We need answers. Not just AstraZeneca running into the dark.

Thursday, May 9th, 2024, 3:36 am

UK Deaths Rose About 20%, AstraZeneca Withdraws Its COVID-19 Vaccine

Week 15, 2019: (UK and Wales Deaths)

UK and Wales Deaths Week 15, 2019

Week 15, 2024: (UK and Wales Deaths)

UK and Wales Deaths Week 15, 2024

A massive increase.

Neanwhile, AstraZeneca runs away from its ‘best-selling’ product.

Wednesday, April 24th, 2024, 4:20 pm

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



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

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.


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,…

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.

Sunday, April 21st, 2024, 6:23 pm

Donny Kurger on Excess Deaths and More

Another new video. Here it is:


Original video link…
Hansard link…
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: [..]

Sunday, April 21st, 2024, 5:36 pm

COVID-19 Speech in UK House of Commons

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.

Monday, April 15th, 2024, 8:46 am

Professor Angus Dalgleish on mRNA Vaccines and Cancer

11 hours ago:


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…

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


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.

Real-time Posts

Posts by @schestowitz

Retrieval statistics: 23 queries taking a total of 0.159 seconds • Please report low bandwidth using the feedback form
Original styles created by Ian Main (all acknowledgements) • PHP scripts and styles later modified by Roy Schestowitz • Help yourself to a GPL'd copy
|— Proudly powered by W o r d P r e s s — based on a heavily-hacked version 1.2.1 (Mingus) installation —|