Building the “coronahoax” charge sheet: reckoning culpability for the deliberate inflation of Covid-19 death

If the aspect of lockdown intended to modify behaviour in a public place is disintegrating because enough people have chosen to defy it, the UK Government still has a trick up its sleeve. The main objective, as amply explained hereabouts before, has always been economic in nature: to engineer a situation that creates plausibility for a harvest of the credit-for-wealth financial system by those who administer it and think that any real value in it is theirs for the taking. The insistence by UK Government that businesses should, for an indefinite period into the future, impose social distancing guidelines on staff and customers is going to mean inefficiency in operations that big corporations can readily well afford, but small to medium businesses will not be able to. Social distancing, then, is an anti-competition measure to benefit the interests and agenda of corporate-government.

If the UK Government thinks that a second phase of the so-called Covid-19 crisis is about the public staying alert to prevent further waves of outbreak of the disease, it couldn’t be more wrong. For those who stand against criminal activity by the State there is another agenda to follow wholly without reference to what UK Government wants, and there is another sort of awareness to alert the population to. While Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, talks of it being a civic duty to submit to the track and trace regime, in actual fact the civic duty that individuals should subscribe to is the exercise of bringing criminals like the said minister of state to justice.

The people who are responsible for what has been a hoax to create the pretext for a despicable act of economic vandalism, and likewise the people who are now in the process of performing the devastation, need to be brought to book. This is the be-all-and-end-all of the situation that the country finds itself in. As such, it is the intention here at FBEL, in the course of a number of articles, to behave in a civically-minded fashion by shining some light on the places where “coronahoax” cockroaches, like the said minister of state, would otherwise hope to escape detection.

The starting point for our investigation is to look at the people who created the landscape for a hoax by enabling the potential for a large death tally, and also those who then acted to realise it. An important piece of information for our purpose was communicated by the medical doctor, John Lee, who has been having his perspective published in the Spectator since the beginning of lockdown. The particular piece of interest is now behind a paywall, but at one point, quite soon after its publication, it was still freely available. (It is in keeping with how essential data regarding Covid-19 has remained knowledge belonging only to those who have pursued it, and has untroubled common ownership by a reluctance of media of every variety to disseminate it more widely, that Lee’s quite damning piece is not an open source).

So, let us beat about the bush no longer: Lee points out that the principle factor in what has become the construction of a large supposed Covid-19 death toll is what has essentially been the failure to perform autopsies on the dead, supposedly from Covid-19, and thus the failure to obtain biological material by which pathologists can understand the disease:

…changes introduced during the coronavirus epidemic…  mean that pathology has not been able to play the role that it should have in helping to understand this new disease… There is my own speciality of histopathology, or cellular pathology. We are experts in analysing changes in the fabric of our bodies that result from disease… Every time a biopsy or surgical sample is taken, it comes to the histopathology lab to be examined. Histopathology is often regarded as a ‘gold standard’ for diagnosis of diseases that change tissue structure. A clinical examination or X-ray may suggest that a tumour or fibrosis of the lung, say, is present, but you need to examine a tissue sample microscopically to be sure that it’s really there, what type it is, and how advanced. Tissue can also be examined genetically to look for the presence of infectious agents or cellular receptors that may determine how deadly it is.

The significance of this cannot be understated. Lee makes a very pointed remark about how examination of a sample of biological material could determine if an anomaly is present at the lung of a victim. The SARS-COV to ACE2 binding that is the cause of real Covid-19 would certainly fit the requirements of an abnormality that deserved closer inspection. And microscopic examination of sample material would detect the condition because this is how it has been confirmed (please see FBEL’s coverage of imaging by Yan et al of a “RBD-ACE2-B⁰AT1 complex with cryo–electron microscopy”). Of course, in actual fact, we could reasonably presume that a histopathology lab would rarely see the condition because so few cases of so-called Covid-19 are real. To put it another way, if autopsy of so-called Covid-19 victims had been routine, the disease could have been found in an undeniable way to be “an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality” (famously described as such by Dr Alexander Myasnikov, Russia’s head of coronavirus information), and the capacity in the medical profession would exist for the disease to be dismissed in all but a few cases.

To spell this out very clearly: the failure to include the tool of autopsy in the death certification process has been the chief reason why it has been possible for a cover-up of the real and relatively harmless nature of Covid-19. Of course, Lee doesn’t venture into territory regarding the proven cause of Covid-19, and the author would suggest that this isn’t about avoiding professional embarrassment related to broaching controversial material and thus a matter of self-censorship. The subject matter is not controversial in terms of its science, but it is dangerous in terms of being destructive to the entire paradigm, and the author suggests that an instruction has been issued so that, beyond it being but rarely discussed in corporate-media (for the purposes, as part of the legalistic game played by UK Government, of making the public nominally informed and thus consenting [see here for an explanation]), there is no coverage in alternative media. 

Of course, there is a further supposition to make regarding the omission of the autopsy from the death certification process: a seasoned event sceptic won’t accept the excuse of oversight or incompetence. Indeed, even straight laced John Lee is inclined to think that there was a deliberate intention to essentially ban autopsies on deceased Covid-19 patients (with emphasis added):

Looking at the current crisis, the response so far has been very different. We are still struggling to understand coronavirus. I can think of no time in my medical career when it has been more important to have accurate diagnosis of a disease, and understanding of precisely why patients have died of it. Yet very early on in the epidemic, rules surrounding death certification were changed — in ways that make the statistics unreliable. Guidance was issued which tends to reduce, rather than increase, referrals for autopsy.

He continues:

It might have been possible to check these proportions [of the dead that are Covid-19 cases] by examining the deceased. But at a time when autopsies could have played a major role in helping us understanding this disease, advice was given which made such examinations less likely than might otherwise have been the case. The Chief Coroner issued guidance on 26 March which seemed designed to keep Covid-19 cases out of the coronial system: ‘The aim of the system should be that every death from Covid-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the… death certification… process. [On this matter the Chief Coroner and the National Medical Examiner are in full agreement].’ And even guidance produced by the Royal College of Pathologists in February stated: ‘In general, if a death is believed to be due to confirmed Covid-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.’

More work is required to overtly identify the links that exist between presiding officials of a “guild” of pathologists and the Chief Coroner, who is part-appointed by a cabinet minister, and then to identify links, overall to UK Government, by which political agenda can be realised. But it can generally be said that the UK Establishment clearly made an extraordinary decision so that, despite all normal expectation, the tool of autopsy would not be utilised in dealing with a supposed disease pandemic.

Now, it is crucial to understand that underlying the guidance quoted in the above extract is the classification of Covid-19 as a natural cause of death. The following is more from the Chief Coroner’s guidance as published 26th March:

The Chief Coroner would like to remind coroners of the Ministry of Justice Guidance on the Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 which provides:

“24. A death is typically considered to be unnatural if it has not resulted entirely from a naturally occurring disease process running its natural course, where nothing else is implicated.”

It goes on:

To restate: COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death. There may of course be additional factors around the death which mean a report of death to the coroner is necessary – for example where the cause is not clear, or where there are other relevant factors…

In a hospital death scenario, establishing COVID-19 as cause of death and following the MCCD [(death certification)] process is a relatively straightforward matter because of diagnosis and treatment in life. In community deaths it may become more complex. Because of the pandemic pressures, there may be insufficient capacity within the health service to diagnose COVID-19 as an illness in life and to produce an MCCD after death without any report to the coroner…

The Coronavirus Act of Parliament gained Royal Assent on 25 March 2020, meaning it is now law. Once the clauses relating to death certification and cremation are commenced the legislation will expand the MCCD ‘window’ from 14 to 28 days and allows a doctor who was not the attending doctor to sign the MCCD; this will reduce the risk of the scenario above happening. However, there may remain a proportion of suspected COVID-19 (to a greater or lesser degree of confidence) deaths where report of death is likely to be made to the coroner because a doctor is unable to sign a MCCD.

Bringing the information together, what it appears to say is that there would be little to no referral to a coroner from a hospital expressly due to the classification of Covid-19 as a natural death. It also appears to say that, without the Coronavirus Act, things would not be so simple outside of the hospital environment because of the lack of “expertise” to declare a “natural death” of Covid-19. It states, therefore, that the enforcement of the Coronavirus Act would manifest on the ground as less necessity for the involvement of a coroner.

The reader may be a little confused about the fact that Covid-19, as well as supposedly being a natural cause of death, has been classified as a notifiable disease, and imagine that there might be some kind of conflict of terms. In fact, the two states are complimentary when, that is, Covid-19 death is exempted from the scrutiny that is usually bestowed upon an expiry involving a disease that is notifiable. As a notifiable disease, Covid-19 has in essence been promoted so that it can be treated as a cause of death “where nothing else is implicated” (an FBEL article, also featuring explanations by John Lee, regarding this issue can be found here). Having this status, and being a natural cause of death, it has greater scope for bypassing the coroner.

Surely only the dishonourable, who would put their livelihood ahead of the rise and expansion of a totalitarian government, could fail to see that a scheme has deliberately been engineered so that an environment exists whereby an exaggerated number of Covid-19 deaths can be declared.

For the purpose of limiting the scope of Government for dispensing abuse, the people who are responsible for the situation should be reckoned as being liable to be charged for the crimes of and resulting from the “coronahoax”. In the matter of identifying these people, there would be a number of culpable individual bureaucrats in various Government divisions that would need to be winkled out, but at the very outset we can say that all MPs and Lords who didn’t vote against the Coronavirus Bill as it was hurried through Parliament are guilty, as is the Queen, for giving the bill assent into law.

Furthermore, there are the people who deliberately acted to keep the tool of autopsy out of the death certification process through guidance, empowered by the Coronavirus Bill, that influences the behaviour of medical practitioners. Collectively, we can see that culpability can be ascribed to the Chief Coroner and the Royal College of Pathologists. We have also seen the incrimination of the National Medical Examiner and the Ministry of Justice, and more evidence is required to fully understand the parts played by these offices/ministries. Again, a fuller investigation will be required to discover the particular individuals in all the mentioned organisations who are culpable.

Changes to the death certification process made by the Coronavirus Bill meant that one person could sign a death certificate without corroborative medical opinion, and even without any evidence of Covid-19. We can suppose that the intention was to remove any obstruction to Covid-19 being listed as a cause of death that ignorance of the disease might have represented. Again, then, it could be argued that culpability appears to reside with planners looking to take advantage of medical practitioners who, by custom, rely on the advice that is transmitted to them from those sources. However, it is clear for anyone who wishes to inspect the evidence to see that recourse to an autopsy had not been rendered impossible, and so any assignment of blame is not restricted to organisations, and individuals within them, who have produced guidance. The real nature of Covid-19 is not a secret, and material has been published that medical practitioners could have made themselves familiar with.

And so, when, for instance, a General Practitioner by the name of Malcolm Kendrick writes for RT (as he recently has) and appears to have no serious idea as to the nature of Covid-19, the result is merely a public admission of negligence.

What advice was given? It varied throughout the country, and from coroner to coroner – and from day to day. Was every person in a care home now to be diagnosed as dying of the coronavirus ? Well, that was certainly the advice given in several parts of the UK.

Where I work, things were left more open. I discussed things with colleagues and there was very little consensus. I put Covid-19 on a couple of certificates, and not on a couple of others. Based on how the person seemed to die.

If the doctor admits that he had to rely on guesswork based on appearances we shouldn’t be surprised, given that the mechanics of Covid-19 have deliberately been covered-up. However, that Covid-19 was declared, in the above account, “Based on how the person seemed to die” is something beyond being worthy of scorn. If NHS technicians are signing Covid-19 without any understanding of it, apart from what has come down from an apparent authority, it certainly doesn’t excuse them. Anyone who decided that someone had died of Covid-19 without being certain is jointly responsible for artificially inflating the death tally. And these people must be winkled out and brought to justice – but there is a big problem because of the absence of autopsy findings.

While there are many cases where the attributing of a death to Covid-19 is a ridiculousness, and while these would be the cases were charges could conceivably have a better chance of being prosecuted, ultimately the lack of an autopsy means that it would be very hard to prove that a death certificate has been produced in bad faith or wilful ignorance. Such is the nature of the crime that the evidence of it is disposed of as a matter of course. The effectiveness of the low cunning that has bypassed the tool of autopsy extends to creating a level of indemnity for the pawns in the “coronahoax” scheme upon which it ultimately depends. And if the pawns – the medical practitioners – have been able to appreciate this, it means they could have signed off a bogus death certificate in the belief that there could be no comeback. This is why they are not to be gone easy on, nor to be let off the hook.