The Covid-19 science problem; Part Three: cover up, omission, muddle

Real Covid-19 deaths are iatrogenic. It means they are caused by illness in turn caused by medical treatment. There is no new SARS coronavirus, but instead only a new environment enriched for the 2003 one, or a development of it, to exploit because of certain medication and its influence on ACE2 levels in a host. SARS is only slightly more potent than it was before, and may well have been an ongoing phenomenon that was insignificant in its rates of occurrence, and overlooked due to a tendency for it to be mistaken for other ailment.

The current Covid-19 scare in the UK is an exploitation of the Chinese novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP), where political embarrassment at intolerable levels of pollution forced scientists to acknowledge the involvement of SARS coronavirus in an illness which was a matter of the cumulative effect of a number of factors on health terrain. In the UK, and in other places in the West, the condition at the core of the so-called pandemic is one of the factors in NCIP, which is binding of SARS-COV with ACE2 leading to infection of the lung leading to pneumonia and complications seeming to stem from it; supplementary to this, and plausibly intrinsically linked to it, is the incidence of low blood oxygen levels. Most death from what is called Covid-19, perhaps even as much as 95%, is from other causes. In short, through changes in legislation, the medical profession has been given the ability to claim general death as Covid-19, and thus it and Parliament are complicit in the gross over-inflation of numbers of Covid-19 dead. The purpose appears to be to attack the British economy through mass closure of business and the control of public behaviour, and to instil public behaviour protocols for the sake of broader social engineering for Government control.

Even if the reader does not agree with this theory, at least he must conclude that there should be a unified mechanical explanation for Covid-19 that yet cannot satisfactorily be observed in so many variations of death said to be due to the disease – much as was stated in Part One of this series. Following from this, the reader might also like to concede that no satisfactory unified scientific understanding of Covid-19 has been proffered by corporate-media. This would be because there are two versions: the one contrived for propaganda purposes which is, in reality, multiple different causes of death disguised as Covid-19 by misdiagnosis either by unreliable PCR test or by assessment of symptoms by eye (and in some cases, with no involvement of a medical professional whatsoever), and another one – the real version – involving ACE2 binding at the lung, and hypoxemia.

And then an astute reader may well ask the question: why doesn’t high profile alternative media ever discuss the clear phenomenon of two-version Covid-19 and the absence of a unified scientific reality when it would be eminently more effective at exposing a hoax than, for instance, merely discussing the inflation of numbers of death based on incorrect diagnosis? The latter is a talking point that can be reduced into an issue of whether or not doctors are acting unprofessionally, and Covid-19 can be defended by appeals to emotion (don’t be cruel to doctors), authority (doctors are experts), as well as claiming well-meaning incompetence and/or ignorant compliance with orders. On the other hand, Covid-19 cannot be defended in the face of the fact that death by old age with suspected coronavirus and called Covid-19 is not infection leading to pneumonia and complications.

To use the 9/11 attack as an allegory, it appears that in high profile alternative media, there is only a desire to discuss the appropriateness of the response to the destruction of the World Trade Centre, and not to expose the fact that it was destroyed by controlled demolition.

For when one gets into the two-version Covid-19 territory, it soon becomes clear that the focus should be on health terrain in a host prior to the addition to it or the activation of a SARS coronavirus. More broadly, in fact, the issue becomes one of medical malpractice as standard culture, which perhaps ultimately risks a collapse in ideology of which the NHS has been showpiece. However, restricting criticism of the NHS to the conduct of a few bad apples is defendable in the ways specified above. If, on the other hand, one can produce material that betrays the existence of an industrial philosophy whereby a necessity arises to create a market for pharmaceutical products when none are needed, then the NHS becomes an organisation capable of conspiring in a hoax of the broadest scope that serves the needs of political and corporate masters (or the corporate-government).

If alternative media exposed the hoax at its root, then the uncovering of plots, whereby corporate-media has purposefully set about creating fear of Covid-19, becomes redundant activity. If alternative media says to its audience: the mainstream media is wrong to say that Covid-19 is dangerous because “more than 80% of a population only experience mild symptoms”, then there is only confirmation of the bogus death figures. And it is all very well for alternative media to point to the difference between death with and from coronavirus when its audience hasn’t the faintest clue what it means. Undoubtedly, thanks to the manner in which the subject is covered, in the minds of millions of people there is an idea that if a patient was weak from having had a stroke, for instance, and then contracted Covid-19, or what they visualise as a cold that made the patient a bit more feebler and finally finished him off, then it could be said that the individual died from Covid-19. This, of course, is completely wrong. Covid-19 is pneumonia and complications, and it has a specific feature, which is ACE2 binding with SARS-COV at the lung. In fact, there is little hope that there can be clarity in the minds of those who would be sceptical when the gatekeeping operatives that they love so much tell them things like this:

Covid-19… infects many without any symptoms at all

This is from the Twitter spewing of Peter Hitchens. No doubt it is meant to give the impression that people can have Covid-19 without knowing it (and that they can die of a stroke without knowing they had Covid-19). As a matter of fact, infection by SARS-COV is in itself a symptom. Covid-19 gets a start by accessing the host via the respiratory tract. SARS-COV binds with ACE2 at the layer of something called epithelia, which is a lining of cells. The binding is tantamount to infection. The binding is a symptom of the disease.

But talk of infection brings us to the related issue of contagion, which is connected to a raft of talking points (and is in itself one of those) that can be made redundant if there is exposure of the hoax at its root. Because there is, at the crux of Covid-19, a condition in a host that is created by medicine, it means that the public perception of reproduction of a viral infection is actually about pretext for control. It doesn’t, then, take reams of internet column to skirt around the issue of lockdown clearly being something completely separate from prevention of the spread of disease.

There now follows a collation of the information appearing previously at FBEL regarding prevalence of ACE2 caused as a side effect of Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Firstly, the articles, Is “Covid-19” an NHS prescribed drug-induced pneumonia (amongst other things)? (link), and, More on SARS-COV-ACE2 binding & “true” Covid-19 that discredits UK Government’s pretext for creating economic disaster (link).

It should be said that there is huge opposition to the idea that ACEIs and ARBs can create the conditions for SARS-COV binding at the lung. Critics of the theory claim that there is no evidence; often times there is also speculation to the contrary (it is always speculation) as follows:

Not only… [are] ACEIs and ARBs… unlikely to be detrimental in COVID-19 patients, but that they likely will be protective.

This stuff should not be unexpected, given the size of the business that would suffer if people refused to be started on hypertension medicine, having heard of its bad reputation, and decided instead to heal homeopathically.

Details of a further problem potentially directly related to Covid-19 was published in the article, No surprises as Covid-19’s exceptionality remains ignored and unreported; ACE2 crops up again (link).

The ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been reported to reduce hemoglobin (Hb) levels in several patient groups at risk for secondary erythrocytosis, including patients with heart failure, hemodialysis, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and after cardiac surgery or kidney transplant.

This means that ACEIs and ARBs could account for the low blood oxygen aspect of Covid-19.

Obviously, what is required is data so that it can be understood how many people who died of Covid-19 were taking the medicine in question. If the reader was ever given the impression here at FBEL that it is only for hypertension, then a revisit to the first article on the subject reminds that it is dished out for all sorts of things: “cardiovascular diseases including heart attacks…, diabetes and chronic kidney disease”. There is plenty of scope indeed for Covid-19 friendly territory to be created by ACEIs and ARBs, and the medical establishment can’t just be allowed to scream “bad science” and then stage a cover-up – which is precisely what the attempt to blame obesity feels like (as covered in the second part of this series).