(by Rhoda Wilson | The Exposé) – There is growing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was in populations before the purported date of the start of the “pandemic.” However, no excess death was reported … until the health emergency was declared.
There is extremely fine-grained daily death data available for Italy – probably the most granular data available anywhere in the world.
Assumptions derived from this data from Lombardy, Italy — including estimates of the case and infection fatality rates — formed the basis of Covid policies implemented in early 2020 first in the UK, and thereafter rippling across the world
However, using this same data for the period February – May 2020, Jonathan Engler demonstrated how the data shows it is not the spread of a virus but rather health policies, the administration of health and social care, which impacted death rates in the region.
“These observations surely raise questions which need answering around the causes of the high rates of excess deaths in the Lombardy region in spring 2020,” Engler wrote.
Below are excerpts from an article titled ‘Were the unprecedented excess deaths curves in Northern Italy in spring 2020 caused by the spread of a novel deadly virus?’ by Jonathan Engler published by PANDA Uncut.
By Jonathan Engler
As pointed out in several analyses (see, by way of example, these papers reporting data from Italy, the USA, Congo and Brazil), there is growing evidence of the totally unnoticed presence of the virus prior to the purported date of the start of the pandemic and even as early as September 2019. In nearly all papers reporting such data, the significance of there being no excess death observable until the emergency is declared seems to have been missed.
It is worth considering this counterfactual: imagine there was no virus at all, but that for some other reason (any will do) governments decided to institute a range of measures including:
- Telling people not to attend healthcare if they had a cough, fever or other symptoms both to “protect” healthcare and also because any contact with healthcare would quite likely make you contract a deadly disease.
- Telling healthcare staff to isolate if they (or in some cases someone in their household) received a positive test for a certain illness, even if asymptomatic.
- Emptying beds in preparation for being “overwhelmed”.
- Terrorizing and isolating elderly people, especially those living in care homes, denying them visits from relatives and reducing or eliminating in-personal visits from health and social carers.
- Using the entire machinery of state plus all social media and legacy mainstream media channels to promote an exaggerated narrative of fear aimed at the public and spilling over into healthcare workers, when it is well established that stress has several adverse health effects, including immuno-suppression.
- Massive overuse of a treatment (ventilation) with no solid evidential basis, now known to be extremely harmful.
The implementation of such policies would result in protests in the streets with people declaring that “thousands of people will surely die”, and no doubt they would have been right. It is inconceivable that such policies would not have a significant associated mortality.
It must therefore surely be reasonable to assume that at least some of the deaths which occurred in the aftermath of the cataclysmic changes to the delivery of healthcare — especially of the frail and elderly — might have been caused by policy, rather than a virus. The question is: what proportion were caused by such policy changes, and what by the spread of a virus through the population?
The starting point in analysing this question is to ask: what is the evidence of the spread of a virus being the cause of the excess death curves observed? Is “spread” able to be measured, and what would be the implications of different findings?
A Forest Fire Analogy
Imagine a forest fire starting in one corner of a dry forest, ignited perhaps by someone leaving a smouldering barbeque lying around. It would start with a single localised cluster of burning, which would then grow and spread in tendrils until a patch of some more dry tinder was found; these areas would then catch fire, perhaps igniting nearby areas by direct contact. Occasionally a spark would fly off or a burning dead branch would fall off a tree, igniting an area slightly further away, and the process would carry on there. After a while, the whole forest would be ablaze, but only for a short time, because it would soon burn itself out, but with various areas going out at different times because the fires did not start in those areas at the same times.
That would be what you’d expect to see when a process spreads from a point source. What you would NOT expect to see would be the entire forest catching fire at the same time and all areas burning themselves out simultaneously. If that happened, most people would assume that something which affected the entire area at the same time — and which did not rely on spread at all — had happened, maybe a huge destructive fireball from a nearby explosion.
One key point in relation to this is that surveying the scene after the event does not really help that much in determining the cause. They look similar in both scenarios — a burnt-out forest. You need to look at a time series, i.e., how the different areas were affected over time, to find the conclusive evidence of spread.
Does Lombardy Look Like a Spread of a Virus?
[Keeping the forest fire analogy in mind] take a look again at the all-cause death curves in the 13 administrative areas (hereafter termed “provinces” or “administrative areas”) forming the region of Lombardy.