Hiding the truth in the lies, all part of the coronavirus swindle: Eddie Large and 568 others

Remember Eddie Large? He used to do Deputy Dog impressions and exasperate his straight man double act partner who could never, as a result of Large’s heckling, perform a song from start to finish. After years living in relative obscurity, Eddie Large made a showbiz comeback yesterday by being a famous name who died “with coronavirus”.

If the reader thinks that Large is being treated here with facetiousness or callousness, think again. It was the corporate-media that dragged Large’s death into the coronavirus circus; for example, the BBC’s headline: “Eddie Large: Comedian dies aged 78 with coronavirus”.

In actual fact, Large had a long history of heart disease. The damn BBC article even goes into the detail:

[He]… stepped away from the limelight… in 1991, after doctors told Large his heart couldn’t stand the rigours of touring… Large had a heart transplant in 2003, and became an spokesman for the British Heart Foundation.

And then there is is this:

He later had a serious fall outside his home in Portishead and suffered pneumonia, pancreatic problems and a collapsed lung while in hospital – but again made a full recovery.

What the BBC article doesn’t tell its readership is that Large was already in hospital with heart failure – although there is a sly reference to Large’s predicament that gives the impression, by the cunning use of a conjunctive in the separation of a sentence, that Large’s heart problems were not occurring on hospital premises:

His family confirmed the news “with great sadness” on Facebook, saying he had been suffering with heart failure and contracted the virus in hospital.

No, Large was not having a bit of angina, and he did not pop down the outpatients where everyone thought it was a good idea that he might as well have a test for coronavirus while he was there.

The truth of the matter is revealed in the text of the Facebook address made by Large’s son:

It is with great sadness that Mum and I need to announce that my dad passed away in the early hours of this morning. He had been suffering with heart failure and unfortunately, whilst in hospital, contracted the coronavirus, which his heart was sadly not strong enough to fight.

Of course, the big issue in this story is told but not dwelt upon: Large contracted coronavirus in hospital. Where is the horror and the condemnation? How could a hospitalised patient catch coronavirus? Given that Large’s son states that “we had been unable to visit him at the hospital”, it certainly does not look like it was dragged in from the lockdown – and little point there is to that if hospital patients can catch the worst thing since the Bubonic Plague in their supposedly hygienically sealed environments.

The truth of the matter is this: Large died from his underlying health conditions, as hidden away in the Mark Lawson write-up in The Guardian:

The immunosuppressant drugs necessary after such an operation [heart transplant] put him in one of the highest-risk groups for the Covid-19 virus.

No. In all likelihood, it was the immunosuppressant drugs, in combination with his frail physical condition, that killed Eddie Large. This subject was broached here at FBEL in the article, Covid-19 and pneumonic immune system overreaction. Moreover, in all likelihood, Large was one of the 525 people who died on 2nd of April from their underlying health conditions, but yet whose deaths were attributed to coronavirus.

Yes, the reader saw the figures correctly. Of the 569 people who were declared dead by coronavirus in the corporate-media on 2nd of April, only 44 had no underlying health conditions. The Sun reports it quite plainly:

The number of people testing positive for Covid-19 has been rising on average by around 17 per cent per day – suggesting we are no closer to the “curve” flattening.

NHS England today confirmed a further 561 [or 569, in fact] people have died – bringing the total number of hospital deaths in the country to 2,698.

The latest victims were aged between 22 and 100 – including 44 with no underlying health conditions.

But we won’t leave this quote without examining it a little bit. First notice the appeal to the fear of the prospect of the continuing horror through positive test numbers. This data is irrelevant. It is hospital admission numbers and critical care bed occupancy that is all important, as explained here at FBEL previously. And yet, this more significant data is not so generously distributed – and it wouldn’t be, because it wouldn’t have the desired effect, which is to create fear. The fear, of course, is induced in the pronouncement of the big daily jump in the number of deaths – but then comes the “contractual” admission (the use of the adjective will be explained in a moment) that only 7.7% of the dead expired in a way that could not be attributed to something other than coronavirus. Naturally, the inference must be that the total tally for deaths “with coronavirus” has cause not to be believed either.

Of course, most people will not do the necessary inferring, and so will not do the necessary objection to the assertion of the statistics that would otherwise deter the corporate-media, and the authorities that are feeding it with the numbers, from engaging in what is in fact a confidence trick. This is where the concept of the contract comes in. As has been explained hereabouts before, the UK Government misrules because it has invited and received consent for it. Essential for the forming of the contract from whence consent is constructed is the requirement for the consenting party to have opportunity to be fully informed. There is no impediment for the party requiring consent to engage in deception to disguise the fact that disclosure has been made. There is no requirement, even, for the consenting party to comprehend that it has been fully informed. The information just has to be presented. Thus the misrule is authorised. This is how UK Government engineers lawfulness; it knows it can’t operate without lawfulness.

Ultimately, UK Government depends on volunteered subordination to it – and fear is the leverage it always uses to engender this. Creating volunteered subordination is what this coronavirus psychological operation is all about – just look at the way the UK Government has managed to inflict psychosis on people so that they would go into the street and clap and cheer in support of “essential workers”, even though that very day they were told that Eddie Large, their one-time Saturday night, old school, family entertainment favourite, had been killed off by a contraction of coronavirus that occurred while he was in the care of some of those “essential workers”.