Covid-19, Dr A. Kneen digs deep
On the 11th of June 2009, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a pandemic in relation to Swine Flu (H1N1). In spring of 2009,WHO had altered the definition of what constitutes ‘a pandemic’. In April 2009 the definition had read:
An influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.
However, by May 2009 the definition had become:
A disease epidemic occurs when there are more cases of that disease than normal. A pandemic is a worldwide epidemic of a disease. An influenza pandemic may occur when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity.
Large pharmaceutical companies will profit massively from the declaration of a global pandemic through the sale of medical products – drugs, testing equipment, vaccines, etc. It was discovered that a number of WHO advisors had financial links to some of the relevant pharmaceutical companies.
…some experts advising WHO on the pandemic had declarable financial ties with drug companies that were producing antivirals and influenza vaccines […] e.g. WHO’s guidance on the use of antivirals in a pandemic was authored by an influenza expert who at the same time was receiving payments from Roche [..]. Although most of the experts consulted by WHO made no secret of their industry ties …
Other relevant financial relationships, as well as those within WHO, were discovered, such as that of Sir Roy Anderson, a scientist who advises the British Government on swine flu, reported as holding a £116,000-a-year post on the board of Glaxo Smith Kline. Facts such as these prompted WHO to be accused of conducting a hoax pandemic, mainly for the purposes of financial profit. 
As it turned out, relatively few people died of Swine Flu; and it is now generally accepted that it is less harmful than any regular seasonal flu.  Despite dire warnings of mass deaths, in Britain only around 250 people are reported  to have died of Swine Flu. Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, has referred to this as a medical scandal  and got a resolution passed for an investigation. 
Even within the agency, the director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology in Munster, Germany, Dr. Ulrich Kiel, has essentially labelled the pandemic a hoax. “We are witnessing a gigantic misallocation of resources [$18 billion so far] in terms of public health,” he said.
An investigation was duly conducted and a report was issued that did criticise WHO, but few people took any notice. In fact, very few people remember much about the Swine Flu pandemic; there were not mass deaths, hospitals were not particularly busier than usual, etc. A few people might remember the term ‘Swine Flu pandemic’ and a number of people took vaccines and drugs, such as Tamiflu. But the pandemic made little difference to most people’s lives, either in England, or elsewhere.
On the 11th March 2020, WHO declared another pandemic: the coronavirus pandemic. This announcement has caused mass hysteria and terrible consequences have been flowed from government policies enacted in relation to this declaration.  The official narrative in relation to coronavirus is that there is a novel virus (SARS-COV-2) that is very dangerous to health and that can pass from person to person through the air and by other means of transmission, such as by touching ‘infected’ surfaces.  This alleged virus is claimed to cause a disease (covid-19) that can cause severe problems to health, and even kill. It is maintained that a person can have this dangerous virus without even knowing, and can then pass it on to others, the so-called ‘asymptomatic carrier’. The government claims that to protect its people from this terribly dangerous virus it was necessary to impose the extreme measures that it did, notably two lockdowns.
As will be demonstrated below: not a single constituent part of the official narrative is actually evidenced as being true. In fact, there is evidence available to refute each of the claims contained within this official narrative. Perhaps, most fundamentally, many scientists, doctors, virologists, etc. reject the idea that viruses cause disease.  Why, one might ask, do why certain viruses only seem to make people sick to any significant degree at certain times of the year – where are the viruses during the rest of the year? Is it possible that viruses are not what we have been led to believe they are? 
The theory that a virus can pass from person to person through the air (or close contact, via surfaces, etc.) is also refuted by some empirical evidence. We are all familiar with the fact that often people who are together in the same environment are found to thence suffer the same symptoms of disease. However, just because people who are in the same space suffer similar symptoms does not prove that they passed a disease onto one another, be that viral or otherwise. It is plausible that since people were in the same environment at the same time, an environmental factor and/or a seasonal rhythmic factor, caused similar disease symptoms. Various theories have been proposed that point to the possibility of various toxins, and other environmental factors causing disease symptoms. 
There is also empirical evidence that suggests that some diseases that are allegedly caused by person-to-person viral transmission are not.  In 2020, the Spanish Flu epidemic of 1918 is often evoked. It is claimed that this disease was caused by a virus passed from one person to another. However, attempts to infect healthy people by the sick coughing into their faces, transferring spittle to them, injecting blood of the sick into the healthy, etc. failed to find evidence of any of the healthy people becoming infected. 
There are other scientific studies that suggest that viral contagion theory might be incorrect. For example, workers who were totally isolated in the Antarctic at a station were healthy upon arrival. Only after 17 weeks of total isolation did a number of the men become sick with cold/flu-like symptoms.  It was impossible that they could have been infected by another person since they had experienced no contact with the outside world whatsoever. Some might interpret this illness as being the result of a ‘sleeper virus’, but that is not evidenced at all and no virus was found in the stored samples taken from the men.  Plausibly, one could interpret this as the environment causing some bodily processes that manifested in cold-like symptoms, especially since the colds appeared immediately after the coldest week of winter there.
Other commentators accept ‘virus theory’ but query other aspects of the official narrative. Again, at a fundamental level, the alleged SARS-COV 2 virus has never been identified: it has not as yet been proven to exist. It was merely ‘assumed’ to exist. To prove that a virus exists one must obtain a pure isolated sample of the alleged virus. This has, to date, not been conducted. This was recently acknowledged as true by no less that the CDC themselves: “….no quantified virus isolates of the 2019 nCOV are currently available….” 
At the time of writing, no one has actually identified this alleged virus. All the media and government talk of ‘the virus…’ implies that the alleged virus is identified, but, shockingly, it is not. The fact that there is not an isolated pure sample of this alleged virus is also suggested by various freedom of information (FOI) request responses – to date, not a single British authority has acknowledged that they have records of the existence of this alleged virus, and many have admitted that they do not hold such information. 
If a virus is isolated in a pure sample, then scientists can test various theories. One relevant theory would be whether the identified virus actually causes disease. This can be conducted by introducing a pure sample of the virus into an organism and seeing if they become ill or not. Empirical tests such as these form the basis of various testing processes for diseases, such as Koch’s postulates and River’s postulates. In relation to SARS-COV 2, no such tests have been satisfied: there is still no evidence that the alleged virus caused the symptoms known as covid-19.
The set of symptoms known as covid-19 are actually not very specific. We were told to look out for ‘flu-like symptoms’. These include runny noses, coughs, aches and pains, reduction of smell and taste sensitivity, feeling generally unwell, tiredness and a raised temperature. But all these symptoms are also indicative of many other diseases – not least of which a normal flu or cold. It is likely that every reader has experienced these symptoms more than once. Without a test, there is no means to distinguish these symptoms from many other illnesses that most people will experience from time to time. And many ‘covid-19’ diagnoses have been made on symptoms alone, which is not valid. This even includes many death certificates that doctors have filled out as ‘covid-19’ deaths. In fact, a number of countries sent guidelines to doctors instructing them to do this, and in some countries there are financial incentives for doctors to diagnose covid-19. The so-called ‘covid-19 death rates’ are accordingly inflated. These ‘covid-19’ deaths are actually ‘alleged covid-19 deaths’.
Even in relation to those who have died ‘after testing positive for covid-19’, one cannot state that covid-19 killed these people. This is true for a number of reasons. For example, in England, anyone who tests positive for covid-19 and then dies of any cause within 28 days (be that a gunshot to the head) is classed as a ‘covid-19’ death in the statistics.
The RT-PCR test is the most popular current test used to ascertain that a person has ‘the virus’. However, this test does not prove that a person has SARS-COV 2 virus and hence none of this data is reliable. The inventor of the PCR test (Mullis) advised that it is not to be used for diagnostic purposes. Some of the PCR testing kits state on them that ‘These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection’. PCR tests purport to match a section of RNA code from what is said to be the SARS-COV 2 virus with a bodily fluid sample from a person; if they match, the person is said to be positive. However, since nobody has attained a pure sample of the actual alleged virus, then it is logically impossible that any portion of the RNA code claimed to be from the alleged virus could actually be known to be from that virus.  Thus, all these test results are invalid.  This also means that the part of the official narrative that claims that the alleged SARS-COV 2 virus causes covid-19 remains without any evidential basis.
Even the CDC have acknowledged the inadequacy of the PCR test, e.g.:
Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
During recent months there were no excess deaths in England (as compared to recent years), but the push for testing did produce an increase in positive test results. Of course, as is obvious from the above, these positive test results do not mean anyone is diseased nor even carrying SARS-COV 2 – a positive test result merely means a positive test result from a testing kit that is testing for SAR-COV 2. In the light of these facts, some people refer to this situation as a ‘casedemic’ rather than a ‘pandemic’ – or as a ‘fake casedemic’.
Dr Mike Yeadon has discussed this issue and stated that: ‘The PCR testing machinery is, at best, greatly in error and completely misleading’ and he added that:
…community mass testing is the pathology in the country now – not the virus. It must cease today. Without the ‘cover’ of mass testing, there is no evidence at all that the health of the nation is under any threat whatsoever.
Reiner Fuellmich’s class action takes the illegitimacy of the PCR test as one of the foundations of his court case.
And we all can see that in the ‘real world’ people are not dying en mass from covid-19. Our friends and neighbours remain well, although a few might be suffering from a cold or flu.  Perhaps there has been a death of someone who was elderly and/or very unwell with other conditions – but these deaths are not at an abnormal rate. 
It is likely that, as with Swine Flu, the rate at which this alleged disease kills is lower than for normal seasonal flu. The CDC gives the fatality rate per infection (symptomatic or asymptomatic) for various age groups to be:
0-19 years: 0.00003
20-49 years: 0.0002
50-69 years: 0.005
70+ years: 0.054
Even Dr Antony Fauci himself has acknowledged that the deadliness/dangerousness of this alleged disease is comparable to that of a severe flu, e.g.:
[suggesting that] that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS
The final constituent parts of the official narrative pertain to the measures taken by the government. The idea that governments invariably act in the best interests of the people is hardly compelling. Indeed, democide was one of the major killers in the last century. 
Concerning the specific measures taken by our government in 2020, they have caused great harm to people, namely the loss of civil liberties, reductions in quality of life, stress, fear, loneliness, suicides, poverty, unemployment, loss of independence, bankruptcies, debt, increases in mental illnesses, lack of healthcare for reasons other than covid-19. These measures have caused the deaths of thousands of British people  , the so called ‘lockdown deaths’. [Editorial note; we have surrendered our freedom, “…like the base Indian, [who] threw a pearl away, richer than all his tribe…”, Othello]
If one considers the graph above, it is clear that there were no excess deaths prior to the government implementing lockdown on the 23rd March 2020. Now it could be the case that the government timed lockdown perfectly, to commence just when they knew the deaths were about the start. However, the original lockdown was meant to be for 2 weeks to ‘flatten the curve’, and it is clear that the curve is not very flat (and lockdowns have continued for more than 2 weeks). It is more of a bell-shaped curve than a flat-topped shape. Other related facts do not bespeak high competence or precision by our government, which took ‘covid-19’ off the list of highly consequential diseases list on the 19th March 2020!
Even using the data from the ONS, it can be seen from the graph that the number of deaths ‘involving covid-19’ is less than the total number of excess deaths – the difference thus being lockdown deaths.  However, the deaths categorised as ‘covid-19’ deaths cannot be held to be deaths caused by ‘covid-19’. This is true for many reasons – including the fact that ‘involving’ does not even mean ‘caused by’. But most significantly, as demonstrated above, not a single diagnosis of ‘covid-19/SARS COV2’ can be held as reliable. Thus, it cannot be said that any of these excess deaths were necessarily the result of covid-19, and it is entirely possible that they were all lockdown deaths. Various organisations around the world have revised their data on ‘covid-19’ deaths, many claiming that the vast majority of these deaths were probably not actually caused only (or at all) by ‘covid-19’. The CDC has stated that 94% of the deaths that they attributed to covid-19 were actually deaths of people who were suffering from other serious conditions, on average 2.6 other serious illnesses.  In Italy it is now conceded that 99% had other co-morbidities and that the average age of death was over 80. . It is also noteworthy that both lines on the graph follow roughly the same trajectory – suggesting that one might just be a proportion of the other. 
The government has caused the deaths of thousands by its lockdown policies (possibly they caused all the excess deaths). However, some would argue that many more might have died without lockdown being implemented.  To assess this possibility, one needs to examine the data available. Of course, one cannot rerun history to test this, but one can compare with other places that did not implement severe lockdowns (e.g. Sweden, Tanzania, Belarus, etc.). When we do this, ii becomes clear that those places did not experience higher death rates. In fact, there is some evidence that places who did not lockdown at all, or which implemented very light restrictions on people, actually fared better than places that did lockdown harshly.  Within the US, some states did not comply with lockdowns and their statistics are better than those that did. Of course, there are many factors that will affect these statistics, but it can be said with certainty that there was not mass excess death in places without lockdown. 
There is other data that suggest that lockdown did not save lives from any allegedly contagious disease.  For example, if one examines the statistics for some other allegedly infectious diseases around the world, it can be seen that lockdown did not reduce the number of infections or deaths. Even the graph shown above illustrates no change in the rates of deaths from flu – if lockdown reduced transmission of these diseases, then surely the other such diseases (like flu) would have been reduced.
An increasing number of people worldwide, including groups of doctors, lawyers, scientists, are referring to what is aptly called a ‘scamdemic’ or hoax. Many of them are speaking out against the lockdown measures. A number of legal actions have commenced, including a class action by the famous German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich, mentioned above. 
Given the manifest flaws in the official narrative, the question arises why the lockdown measures were implemented by our government. There are evidently some who have benefited from these policies or hope to do so in the future. These gains are not just financial but also social and political. To date, there is no concrete evidence that unscrupulous characters actually encouraged the implementation of the lockdowns. But those responsible for the suffering and death entailed should eventually be held to account.
 The manufacturer of oseltamivir (Tamiflu), payments received for consultancy work and lecturing
 British Medical Journal, 4th June 2010 BMJ 2010;340:c2947
 Also see:
Godlee F (June 2010). “Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu”. BMJ. 340: c2947. doi:10.1136/bmj.c2947. PMID 20525680. S2CID 323055. Archived from the original on 21 December 2010
Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu. British Medical Journal BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2947 (Published 04 June 2010) BMJ 2010;340:c2947
 And the very idea that flu is contagious rather than a natural cleansing/seasonal process is not proven by empirical evidence, in fact there is plenty of evidence to refute this theory (see below).
 Many people worldwide were ‘diagnosed’ with having Swine flu based merely on the fact that they presented with ‘flu-like symptoms’. For these cases, there is thus no evidence that they had anything other than a regular flu. Even for those who were tested with the PCR test, this test does not prove that the patient (or deceased person) actually had Swine Flu. This is true because the actual RNA code for Swine Flu was never empirically determined – and still is not to this day. Hence, not one case can actually be claimed to be a case of Swine Flu. One can only, to be accurate, state that the relatively few cases that were labelled as ‘Swine Flu’ represent alleged cases.
 News Australia, 12th January 2010
 Daily Mail, 18th January 2010:
 Forbes, 5th February 2010:
Interestingly, this article was removed from Forbes in October 2020 and is now only available to read using the ‘way back in time machine’
 The Handling of The H1N1 Pandemic: More Transparency Needed Report Social Health and Family Affairs Committee Rapporteur: Mr Paul FLYNN, United Kingdom, SOC. Council of Europe http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/20100604_H1N1pandemic_e.pdf
WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”
BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2912 (Published 04 June 2010) BMJ 2010;340:c2912
 Parallel to the current ‘pandemic’.
 Relatedly see:
Virus Mania. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-dollar Profits at our Expense. By Torsten Engelbrecht and Claus Köhneln. Traqfford publsihers 2007.
 Sometimes called ‘COV 2’ or ‘SARS 2’ or ‘2019 cov 2’ or ‘2019 n cov’, etc.(take as read throughout)
 Such surfaces apparently do not include Amazon parcel boxes
 Relatedly see:
The Contagion Myth by Thomas S. Cowan and S. F. Morell, Skyhorse Publishing 2020, What Really Makes You Ill by D. Lester and D. Parker 2019
Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology. E.D. Hume A Disant Mirror 2017 (first published in 1923)
 Space does not permit this to be discussed at length here, but this can be addressed in future articles. Recommended reading includes authors such as Stefan Lanka, Dr Andrew Kaufman, etc.
 Relatedly see:
The Invisible Rainbow. By Arthur Firstenberg. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017.
Lester and D. Parker, 2019, ibid.
 E.g. see D. Lester and D. Parker, 2019, ibid
 ‘Experiments to Determine Mode of Spread of Influenza’ Journal of the American Medical Association 73, no. 5 (August 2, 1919): 311-313.
 An Outbreak of Common Colds at an Antarctic Base After Seventeen Weeks of Completer Isolation. By T. R. Allen (Medical Officer, British Antarctic Survey) and A.F. Bradburne, E. J. Scott, C.S. Goodwin and D. A. J. Tyrell (Clinical Research Centre, Harrow, England) Journal Hyg., Camb., 1973: 71, pages 657-667. .
 And other potential explanations are also possible
 Those who conducted this study explicitly stated that they found no such virus in the samples from the sick men, (e.g. from frozen samples collected at the base in tubes, in handkerchiefs, etc. that were later analysed) nor did electron microscopic analysis evidence any viruses in the collected/stored samples
 There are many possible ways in which this could have occurred – these including: lack of daylight at that point in time (hence low vitamin D, etc.); extra toxicity due to use of the paraffin heaters due to extreme cold at that period; etc.
 There are some papers that claim to have achieved this, but when one reads them, they actually do not do so. When various researchers were asked directly about these studies and the issue of proof of this alleged virus and its identification in isolation, it was admitted that this alleged virus has never actually been isolated. Various FOI requests in Britain have also had this fact confirmed by the authorities
 See page 39:
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel 2020
 For example, the media stating ‘the virus is spreading in Liverpool at an alarming rate’, etc.
 E.g. see:
 Or ‘PCR test’ – take as read throughout
 Again, see for example:
 Different PCR tests around the world are using different codes of RNA that are claimed to be from sars-cov 2. However, these codes were taken from a polluted sample – samples from patients’ bodily fluids that were then mixed with other animal matter (e.g. bovine, vero, etc.) and various chemicals, etc. To mix these substances together then to ‘smash’ the cells and extract a short piece of RNA code proves nothing. This section of RNA could be from a number of sources. There is no evidence that these short codes are from any alleged sar-cov 2 virus. To make matter s worse, some people then fed these snippets into computer models that basically guessed what the rest of the strand might consist of – these guesses based on computer data bases that were also invalid. None of the snippets of code necessarily correspond to any so-called virus. This is not empirically based at all. And the patient from whom the samples were taken were not even known to have been necessarily suffering from covid-19 anyway (how would one know without a valid test?). This might appear as ‘science’, but is not valid science at all. None of these RNA codes necessarily correspond to any virus in the real world.
 Even those who do not acknowledge this fundamental problem with the PCR test do acknowledge that the false positive rates are very high. Also, many such people also acknowledge that the number of amplification cycles affects whether a result is positive or negative. Even for the purpose for which the PCR test is designed (research – not diagnosis), the maximum number of cycles is meant to be around 30 – yet the NHS is using 45 cycles which renders the test meaningless and invalid.
 Ibid. page 38:
 E.g. see:
 ‘Real world’ can be contrasted with what is presented on television, the ‘screen-world’. The fact that so many people seem to believe the world is as it is presented on ‘screen-world’ (and in accordance with the official narrative) as opposed to their own empirical experiences in ‘real-world’ is a phenomenon that will be addressed in more detail in a future article. And this false belief often holds even when ‘screen-world’ presents phenomenon that would contradict the official narrative presented on ‘screen-world’, e.g.: the mass BLM protests during the summer (especially in the US) were covered on television, and there was no mass death; empty NHS hospital wards were shown on television with nurses performing choreographed dances while the official narrative proclaimed that NHS hospitals were overwhelmed and -war zones’, etc.
An amusing allegory of this phenomenon is available to watch here:
 The vast majority of deaths allegedly from covid-19 were of the elderly and those already ill with various comorbidities. In fact, in many places the average age of those deemed as dying of ‘covid-19’ is greater than the average life expectancy. It is likely that some of these deaths were accelerated/caused by the lockdown measures, but there is no evidence that a single death was caused by sars-cov 2. There can be no such evidence without a reliable and valid test
 The only time at which there was an excess death rate was immediately after lockdown – and this period of excess deaths is most likely to be as a result of lockdown policies and related consequences (see later)
 ‘Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted’, Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., H. Clifford Lane, M.D., and Robert R. Redfield, M.D. March 26, 2020. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020; 382:1268-1269
 R. J. Rummel (Feb 1, 2005). “Democide Vs. Other Causes of Death”
J. Rummel (1998). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder since 1900. LIT Verlag. ISBN978-3825840105.
Barbara Harff. Reviewed Work(s): Death by Government by R. J. Rummel, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer, 1996), pp. 117-119. Published by: The MIT Press.
Barbara Harff. The Comparative Analysis of Mass Atrocities and Genocide. Chapter 12. p. 112-115. in N.P. Gleditsch (ed.), R.J. Rummel: An Assessment of His Many Contributions, Springer Briefs on Pioneers in Science and Practice 37, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-54463-2
 E.g. see:
 And lockdown measures will continue to cause deaths far into the future, even were the lockdown measures to be completely halted immediately. These ‘future lockdown deaths’ include those for reasons such as missed cancer screenings, increased substance abuse problems, etc.
 From the Office of National Statistics (ONS). The author does not hold this data to be necessarily accurate
 The graph shown above is for deaths, not hospital admissions. However, the graph for hospital admissions is of a similar shape, e.g. see:
Daily Mail 10th August 2020:
 If ‘covid-19’ is not of high consequence, then why would there be a lockdown? And why is this alleged virus still having consequences today? And if it is consequential, why take it off the list?
 Estimates in mainstream journals vary as to how many of the excess deaths were allegedly caused by covid-19, e.g. the British Medical Journal suggests around two thirds of the excess deaths (a majority) were lockdown deaths:
Daily Mail, 31st August 2020
 Bloomberg News, 18th March 2020
 In England and Wales, the average age of such alleged covid-19 deaths is 82.4 years; in contrast to the average age of death from other causes during the same period of 81.5 years (as according to the ONS), e.g. see:
The Times, 10th October 2020:
 E.g. a certain percentage of lockdown deaths might just have been rubber-stamped as ‘covid-19’.
 Rancourt, D. (2020). All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response. 10.13140/RG.2.2.24350.77125.
 And hence such people would argue that even if lockdown caused X deaths, they might have a been X+ deaths without lockdown – and hence they claim that lockdown was a net saver of lives
 John Gibson, 2020. “Government Mandated Lockdowns Do Not Reduce Covid-19 Deaths: Implications for Evaluating the Stringent New Zealand Response,” Working Papers in Economics 20/06, University of Waikato
The Wall Street Journal, 1st September 2020:
The Hill, 9th August 2020:
National Review, 4th October 2020
 Especially not the incredible rates of death that were predicted by some, (e.g. Ferguson).
 It is not proven that such diseases are transmittable from person to person in the manner we have been told they are (see above). However, just to go along with this virus contagion theory for the purposes of illustrating that if this virus contagion theory were true, and if lockdown had saved lives from a transmittable killer virus (‘covid’), then one would expect the rates of other such diseases to have fallen. They did not. This suggests that the idea that lockdown saved lives that would otherwise have been lost by people passing ‘covid’ to each other is incorrect. So those who argue that lockdown deaths were outweighed by the alternative (i.e. people passing ‘covid’ to one another and dying from it) are incorrect
 The numbers for 2020 are almost exactly the same as the previous 5-year averages – the 2 lines match almost perfectly – and neither does the 2020 line show any drop or rise after lockdown
 Of course, in some places the fact that people who died of other causes were incorrectly marked as covid deaths complicate this analysis
 E.g. see:
Simon Dolan’s case:
a challenge to the Coronavirus Act 2020:
And Michael O’Bernicia’s case, e.g.:
 One of the main points made in this case is the invalidity of the PCR tests.
His original video was removed from his channel on Youtube after attaining nearly 2 million views in a matter of days. However, this video is mirrored in many locations online, e.g.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jRqm59cpSoyN/if these are removed, please search for:’ Reiner Fuellmich’
 E.g. see:
Guardian, 7th October 2020:
The proposed Operation Moonshot testing programme is estimated to cost 100 billion pounds – a cost to the British taxpayer but to the benefit of various others, e.g. see:
 Covid-19: The Great Reset, by Klaus Schwab and Thieryy Malleret. World Economic Forum, 2020