UK Government’s chief science advisor reveals “Covid-19” deaths are deaths as normal; BBC admits it too

The coronavirus cat has been let out of the bag; unfortunately there probably isn’t enough freedom from mind control in the British populace for it to register as profusely as it needs. There certainly isn’t any independence or integrity in the corporate-media (and now some very obvious alternative media) for the crucial information to be distributed to a large audience. Nevertheless, the cat is out of the bag. The moment of candidness came from the BBC, who perhaps have weighed the risk involved in delivering material from a position approaching the truth against the need to get ahead of the danger to the Covid-19 narrative represented by the emergence of analysis from the Italian Institute of Health, to wit: only a tiny percentage of Italian Covid-19 cases (to that date) did not see concurrent pre-existing illness in the patient: 0.8% to be exact (the previous FBEL article has links to links to the data source).

Perhaps as part of the handling of this narrative-busting information, Patrick Vallance, a man in the lead of the UK Government’s Covid-19 response, gave a revealing press conference at the end of last week, and something he said more or less provided the main talking point upon which a treatment by the BBC’s Health Correspondent, Nick Triggle, on the subject of Covid-19 was based. Surprisingly, this presentation could not affirm the blame of death by so-called Covid-19 on the coronavirus SARS-COV-2, nor that everyone who has supposedly died of Covid-19 did so. In fact, the BBC man wrote about how there was not enough data to decide:

As we get deeper into this crisis, we will need much greater intelligence on just how many lives are truly being saved, and compare that to the wider cost to society, so the government and the public can weigh up the best course of action.

Note the key words: “how many lives are truly being saved”. They are surely written to indicate that what is lacking is certainty as to whether patients are dying of Covid-19, or whether they are dying of other causes. And if we append a question mark to these words we catch the BBC man asking a very good question about the method the UK Government has adopted for dealing with so-called Covid-19, which has to be unjustified given the abject lack of evidence.

Of course, Vallance, being the government’s chief scientific adviser, and connected in his career history to the University College London (UCL) from whence came† the modelling that advised the UK Government on its course of action, should be able to see the same deficiency as the BBC man. Evidently, however, for some reason known only to himself, when UCL’s computer apparently said no to good science (junk in, junk out style), Vallance abandoned a previous (perhaps only slightly) less extreme stance and got with the draconian programme – and was happily engaged in shilling it to a Commons Select Health Committee last week.

And of course, neither Vallance nor the UCL modellers are idiots. If the UK Government’s response is based on mythology best suited for measures to destroy the economy and provide a pretext for the introduction of legislation that is frankly dystopian (which will be the focus of future FBEL articles, but in the meantime please see the Off-Guardian piece linked to here for an examination of a sample), then it’s because it is designed to be.

And yet Vallance has also been most helpful in dropping a seed by which the BBC Health Correspondent could plant a small oasis of contrariness. Before exploring this fully, however, we need to absorb some key data arising from the aforementioned UCL model (and for this it is to be assumed that Covid-19 is real).

It was predicted that if nothing was done in the UK about the spread of SARS-COV-2, the coronavirus said to lead to Covid-19, then there would be 510,000 deaths (presumably, before the disease had run its course). If efforts were made to stop the spread of the disease by isolating the vulnerable and those with symptoms, then there would be 250,000 deaths. If there was an all out effort to suppress the coronavirus involving school closures, reducing social contact, and isolating the vulnerable and those with symptoms, there would be 20,000 deaths.

Now consider this extract from Nick Triggle’s article:

The figures for coronavirus are eye-watering. But what is not clear – because the modellers did not map this – is to what extent the deaths would have happened without coronavirus.

Of course, this will never truly be known until the pandemic is over, which is why modelling is very difficult and needs caveats.

But given that the old and frail are the most vulnerable, would these people be dying anyway?

Every year more than 500,000 people die in England and Wales: factor in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the figure tops 600,000.

The coronavirus deaths will not be on top of this. Many would be within this “normal” number of expected deaths. In short, they would have died anyway.

It was a point conceded by Sir Patrick at a press conference on Thursday when he said there would be “some overlap” between coronavirus deaths and expected deaths – he just did not know how much of an overlap.

The piece is loaded with key information – the reader will be sure to detect it himself without prompting from the author – but one of the most significant data points is the one that has been emphasised. This sentence appears to be saying that coronavirus deaths will be absorbed into the normally expected number of annual deaths.

First of all the reader should note well that in this extract, and in fact the whole of the article from whence it comes, there is no reference to Covid-19. Instead the phrase “coronavirus deaths” is used. This is significant because it expands the fatal possibilities for coronavirus after the fact, and is alluding to deaths where coronavirus hasn’t necessarily developed into Covid-19 as the killer; in other words, it means deaths with coronavirus, or where the coronavirus is present, to implicate the coronavirus irrespective of whether or not Covid-19 is to be blamed (an idea summarised in the boldened text, below). However, this is still problematic for an official narrative, as the BBC piece overtly states:

The testing which has been done in many countries means we know when a patient dies with the virus inside their body. What it does not tell us is to what extent coronavirus contributed to the death.

To be strictly correct, while the PCR testing may indeed find coronavirus inside the host, it cannot detect abundance of the material and thus if the host is infected. Hence, the test does not tell if the coronavirus killed the patient – as the BBC correspondent rightly points out. In any case, the hugely significant thing about this is that it is an admission of a fact that has hitherto been suppressed in corporate-media, but one which FBEL readers will by now well understand: the coronavirus being in the body does not indicate Covid-19. Moreover, the BBC is admitting that deaths attributed to Covid-19 might not be due to that so-called disease at all and, generally throughout the rest of the article, that death might be due to other causes that would have been expected as normal.

Now if we segue back to the point that had been begun to be made, the statement “The coronavirus deaths will not be on top of [the expected annual UK fatality figure of 600,000 plus]”, we can infer a confirmation that all possible deaths (as predicted by the UCL model) by so-called Covid-19 would have been normally expected, and thus due to other causes but attributed to coronavirus by being “coronavirus linked”, which is we might suspect is a new trick of semantics to backtrack from the myth of Covid-19 as a killer in its own right, but to retain SARS-COV-2 as the culprit.

The next thing to notice, however, is that Triggle qualifies the idea of all SARS-COV-2 related death being accounted for by normally expected deaths. He says that less than all of the coronavirus related deaths will be ones that should have been expected; i.e. the people who “would have died anyway”. Now, what Patrick Vallance has said comes into play here, which is self-evident from the article. Imagine two sets: deaths with coronavirus, and deaths as normal. Vallance conceded that it is not known how much these sets would intersect. It is quite feasible that they could intersect entirely so that all members of one set could be members of the other. In other words, all coronavirus linked deaths could be normally expected deaths, or to translate, all coronavirus linked deaths could be expirations caused by pre-existing serious ailments. This possibility is certainly backed up by the findings of the Italian Institute of Health.

There is by now lots of material on the internet for the reader to understand how deaths by pre-existing illness have been attributed to Covid-19, and this site provides a reasonably good starting place (please see the article linked to above titled, Covid-19 and pneumonic immune system overreaction).

On the other hand, the effort to get to grips with the reason that a fake pandemic has been used by governments in the west to destroy the livelihoods of their governed is something that has not solidified into a coherent and demonstrable idea, and perhaps the only proof of the pudding will be in the eating; i.e. we will only know when it is happening to us. However, at that stage knowledge of Covid-19 as the phantom scapegoat will be well established. And just as the widespread exposure of al-Qaeda, which was the equivalent bogeyman device in the War on Terror as an Orwellian tool of those executing the reaction to (their own) terrorist provocation, proved to undermine and cause to fail a plan for domination of foreign territory by Globalist financier class interests, so too will widespread appreciation of the true nature of Covid-19 undermine and cause to fail the irregular warfare that is now being unleashed on domestic territories.

Update, 18:57; date as published:

The BBC has edited the article which is the study of this piece.

The sub headline, “Would these people be dying anyway?” has been changed to “Could these deaths be prevented?” This is the subtitle for the text that formed the extract quoted in the body of this piece.

The line “But given that the old and frail are the most vulnerable, would these people be dying anyway?” has been removed in its entirety. Also now removed from the 5th (now 4th paragraph) is the sentence, “In short, they would have died anyway.”

BBC article as captured at 14:05, 21st March:

Would these people be dying anyway?

BBC article as seen on 19:04, 22nd March:

Could these deaths be prevented?

† Correction (25th March, 2020): the testing in fact came from Imperial College London.