While even President Biden has declared the pandemic “over” (though his staff quickly walked back that comment), the repercussions of the pandemic are very much not over.
The lessons to be learned have not been absorbed by the public or by policymakers. This kind of series of policy mistakes will happen again, and probably soon, unless we all absorb the lessons of just how exaggerated this recent pandemic has been.
It’s become more and more clear that the pandemic was effectively a very large-scale fraud, whether planned or not (I’m still undecided on this question of it being planned or more a series of mistakes made out of an abundance of caution).
A central part of this fraud is the “Covid deaths” statistic. A “Covid death” was defined in the US and by the World Health Organization (of which the US has long been the largest funder) in an extremely over-inclusive way as basically anyone who died after testing positive for Covid.
Each state implemented its own definition, which varied a bit here and there, but most were absurdly over-inclusive in the same manner as I just stated.
Massachusetts, for example, defined a “Covid death” as anyone who died within 60 days of a positive Covid test. Then in January of 2022 they revised that to the only slightly less absurd definition of anyone who died within 30 days of a positive Covid test (I’ve had extensive dialogue with their public health dept. to uncover this history).
Ditto for California.
No, other illnesses and deaths, such as “flu deaths,” are not defined in this manner at all.
We know now, based on significant analysis, that the vast majority of “Covid deaths” (probably 90% or more) were not caused by Covid, but were at best simply “deaths with Covid,” that is, a death that occurred after a positive test, with no requirement that the death be actually caused by Covid, or even that the person actually had Covid as opposed to simply a positive test result.
So what caused observed “excess deaths” if not Covid? The only other explanation is policy choices like lockdowns, which predictably led to massively higher deaths in various other categories alongside a preexisting very significant increasing trend in fentanyl deaths, and treatments for Covid.
We (the authors are myself, a policy lawyer with 20 years of experience, an ER doctor, and a PhD with training in epidemiology) wrote up the details on just how much the Covid stats have been exaggerated in this essay.
I also show how egregious double standards have been used when examining whether a death is due to Covid, a breakthrough case, or to vaccines in this essay.
This recent Rumble video does a great job of compiling public officials’ statements, in various countries and states, about how they define Covid deaths, illustrating quite well just how absurd these stats were — and how, when pressed, these officials fell back by necessity to appeals to “int’l standards” for how Covid deaths were to be defined.
And yes we also know now that Bill Gates and his Gates Foundation, as well as China’s Communist Party, had inordinate influence in creating these absurd public health policies and “int’l standards” promulgated by the World Health Organization (WHO) over the last decade.
There were many powerful oars rowing for many years in the same direction to create policies that would enhance the apparent impact of the next virus that came along.
It’s become more and more clear that there has been a very concerted and powerful effort for many years now to have a “real pandemic,” after SARS, bird flu, swine flu, MERS, etc., failed to generate real pandemic numbers during the last twenty years.
The Covid pandemic became a “real pandemic” in large part because of major policy and definition changes in just the last few years that inflated the Covid numbers beyond recognition, and not because the virus itself was particularly deadly (an October 2022 study from the Ioannidis team at Stanford found a global average Infection Fatality Rate for age 69 and under of only 0.07% and this very low figure assumes that the headline “Covid deaths” figures are accurate, which of course they are not, so the actual IFR is significantly lower than even this very lower number).
A review of the evidence in the essays above, and of course reams of other scholarship, including many peer-reviewed papers that are getting published despite the powerful forces arrayed against them, strongly supports this statement.
