However in order for us to feel certain again, we must ask ourselves a series of questions in order to move forward and accept the answers.
This can be done in the Rational Thinking Test[i]which takes you through a series of questions designed to have you answer them logically.
I would encourage you to go through these as they bring up interesting unbiased opinions once having answered the questions.
There is a psychological line, and we don’t want to cross it, so we have to deploy critical rational thinking to allow us to pass safely over that line.
You need to have an open mind to answer these questions.
You need to be able to handle the truth that answering these questions will give you.
You need to be comfortable that you may feel uncomfortable with the answers.
For each question, you can answer
No idea – No – Highly unlikely – Unlikely – Unknown – Maybe – Likely – Probably – Highly likely – Yes
Here are the questions:
Depending on the answers you gave will illustrate where your thinking lies.
All thoughts are your thoughts and no thoughts are bad thoughts, they are only that; your thoughts.
If you feel that some of your answers surprised you, that means you are rapidly becoming conscious to what is going on around you.
If you feel that some of your answers did not surprise you but you feel powerless to act, then again you are becoming conscious to what is going on around you.
Whether you choose to act or not is up to you.
If you do choose to act, here follows a statistical analysis and some forthright questions that a person with nothing to hide would easily answer…
I’d like to preface this section by stating that this article is taken from a 16 page letter I sent to Peter Bone, my local Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, UK.
I had to illustrate my points using both data for Northamptonshire and the UK. As such, some points are local in nature but still relevant in the wider context of the questions I am asking.
All data used is up to 26th May 2020. All source data is listed at the end of the article.
Northamptonshire ‘reported’ cases of COVID-19 were 1,435 cases out of a total population of 747,622 which is less than 0.19% of total population and has been since I started recording the cases myself before lock-down.[ii]
Total recorded deaths is 487 which could be seen as a 34% case fatality rate or in other terms a crude mortality rate of 0.06%. As we are unclear of the total number of infections due to inadequate testing the overall infection fatality rate is unknown (but could be around 0.8% (see later statement).
Given the heavy media and government bias in reporting these cases, it is worthwhile to compare the other causes of death.
Cancer Cases per year[iii]
There are typically 3,500 cancer cases in NHS Nene CCG with 1,500 deaths per year.
This would indicate a 42.8% case fatality rate or crude mortality rate of 0.002%.
These statistics are hard to acquire but indicate total deaths of 1,365 which based on total population is 0.001% mortality rate. Total identified cases are 70,700 indicating that case fatality rate is 0.019%.
I highlight this to show the vast discrepancy in deaths normally accounted for in cancer and cardiovascular cases (the two highest forms of death in our county and nationally) to compare these verses COVID19
Put it this way; if we extrapolated deaths so far on the same bearing and pattern for COVI19, this would indicate at a reasonable level that we’d expect around 1,144 deaths in Northamptonshire vs 1,365 cardiovascular deaths and nearly 50% more deaths from cancer at 1,500… (but we don’t have a cure for either of these)
Deaths so far (if accurately recorded see point 2) would indicate that May 25 being 39.7% into 2020 or 145 days, we could say we’ve averaged 3 deaths per day meaning we could potentially face up to another 657 deaths this year.
1.1.1 Does locking down an entire county of 747,622 people for 1,144 deaths or a 99.4% chance of surviving seem a rational or logical thing to do?
1.1.2 Given that NHS have been told to only prioritise urgent cases, how many more cancer and cardiovascular cases do you think may have gone untreated and how many more deaths will be caused by this policy?
1.2. The Use of Inaccurate Data to make decisions affecting 66 million people.
From Tuesday 28 April, NHS England and NHS Improvement started to report the number of patient deaths where there has been no COVID-19 positive test result, but where COVID-19 is documented as a direct or underlying cause of death on part 1 or part 2 of the death certification process. This change has been introduced for deaths that occurred on 24th April and subsequently and is shown separately in the region data table only. When making comparisons over time these figures should not be included.[v]
1.2.1 Why is the NHS inaccurately reporting deaths as COVID19 when they are perhaps unrelated, the person had underlying symptoms and would have died anyway of cancer, cardiovascular or respiratory conditions?
1.2.2. Why has the NHS on its website indicated that despite NOT TESTING for Covid19, they are categorising people as having died from this virus on the death certificate?
1.2.3. Do they get more money from Government or Corporations if they record the death inaccurately?
1.2.4. Who decided to issue this directive to start reporting in this way?
1.2.5. Which Minister was responsible and why did they take this decision when it is clearly misrepresentative of the truth.
1.2.6. Furthermore, given the many reports of tests being inaccurate and indeed having heard of both goat and pawpaw samples being tested positively overseas, how can we be sure that these records are in fact accurate?[vi]
2. The Folly of using flawed Lockdown Models & Impartial Experts
Background to this case:[vii]
In 2002, Ferguson predicted up to 50,000 people would die from mad cow disease.
So far there has been 177 deaths.
Ferguson managed to persuade government to cull £10 billion worth of livestock in the foot and mouth outbreak even killing animals with no evidence of infection in neighbouring fields.
Ferguson predicted up to 150 million people could die from bird flu.
The real number was 282.
In 2009, he suggested that 65,000 citizens (and furthermore one-third of the world’s population) would die from swine flu.
The number ended up being 457 in the UK.
I could go on… but this chart may illustrate how far off his predictions have been so far.
2.1.2 Would you agree that basing decisions from data provided by this fruitcake and providing him with a public platform and funding could prove somewhat problematic and difficult for the general public to accept once they learn more of this…?
2.1.3 Given the above directive by NHS England (1.2 Section) to misleadingly label deaths as coronovirus, could it be construed that there is something else afoot here and was it worth locking down our county, sending our economy into recession and causing immense hardship and further deaths in the future from poverty, isolation and mental health?
Monthly tables are produced by UK Statistics Authority yet since March 2020 they have stopped reporting on any cause of death outside of COVID19.
Interestingly, if you look at the statistics for March 2020, when most experts would agree that we were already in the midst of COVID19 and the virus was rife within the population, some interesting statistics come to bear.
Cause of Death
This would indicate that the COVID19 virus has been over-hyped given that people are still dying of other illnesses in far greater numbers and if reports are to believed according to point 1.2 the COVID19 numbers are in fact over-stated.
2.1.4 Why have we stopped reporting on the Cause of Death from March 2020? Has nobody died from cancer, heart disease, dementia, respiratory disease and more?
2.2 How can we truly be sure that the advisors on SAGE are in fact impartial?
The Government website clearly indicates one worrying fact.
Permission to publish names was requested from all participants. Those who did not give permission have not been named.[viii]
2.2.1 Why is the Government allowing people to be on extremely important advisory groups but unwilling or unable to publish their names?
2.2.2 Have all of the advisors been checked to understand where their funding or predilection comes from?
I personally have not had the time to dig deep into the funding nor bias that the advisors come from but having read various reports about the group, it appears reasonably certain to me that a large percentage of the ‘un-biased’ advisors have in fact received funding from pharmaceutical companies or companies invested into vaccines.
2.2.3 Will an independent committee investigate who is on the advisory panels, what their background is, what funding they have received to date and are they truly independent?
enable existing mental health legislation powers to detain and treat patients who need urgent treatment for a mental health disorder and are a risk to themselves or others, to be implemented using just one doctor’s opinion (rather than the current 2). This will ensure that those who were a risk to themselves or others would still get the treatment they need, when fewer doctors are available to undertake this function
3.1 In Schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Bill; why have you agreed that only one doctor’s signature is needed to ‘detain and treat patients who are a risk to themselves or others’; does this mean if I refuse to have a vaccine will I be deemed a risk to others and thus categorised as mentally unstable? How can this be a legal use of power? Where are the safeguards?
provide powers to require educational institutions or childcare providers to stay open or relax some requirements around education legislation in order to help these institutions run effectively during the event of an emergency. This could include reducing teacher ratios, adapting school meal standards and relaxing provisions for those with special educational needs. This will ensure that children, young people and those who work with them remain safe, while minimising disruption to everyday life and progression to further and higher education or employment by ensuring schools have the flexibility and support they need to respond pragmatically to the changing situation
3.2 Why have you shut schools with no oversight or governance as to what they are doing?
There are no general followed guidelines, no consistent education being given yet I believe all teachers are being paid full salary?
3.2.1 What are teachers doing on a day-to-day basis on full pay given that they are not conducting lessons, they are not marking homework, they are not holding parents evenings and they are not progressing children along their education path?
3.3 Can you advise why you voted to allow public health officers or constables the power to detain based on assumptions that I ‘may be’ infected with coronavirus and likewise to allow said officers to take from me a biological sample?
How would they know? Are they qualified to make this assessment?
3.3.1 How can they accurately make this assessment given that the testing kits so far provided worldwide appear to give wildly differing results and are inaccurate?
3.3.2 Isn’t the very nature of forcing me to submit to a biological sample against my fundamental human rights to refuse as only I know what my body is or isn’t doing?
3.4 In Schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Bill, you give wide-ranging Police State powers that have effectively ruined our entire economy yet the Parliamentary State is exempt?
Why is this given that in actuality, the Parliamentary State no longer has any say in how our country operates and must follow the lead given by the Cabinet on what they can and cannot do outside of the Parliamentary State? Laws are being made on a daily basis that no member of parliament is voting on or ratifying.
We see daily news reports in our county of Northamptonshire (and indeed nationwide)
– traffic wardens in Northampton town centre (personally witnessed 7 traffic wardens at 830am on a Saturday morning looking for business (raising money for Northampton Borough Council)
– mobile camera vans out on the roads looking to raise revenue
– police officers harassing people desperate to be outdoors yet made to feel like criminals
– a police chief constable Nick Adderley, Northamptoshire firmly showing his true colours in the wake of this crisis by making people feel like criminals for ‘getting fresh air’! When a police chief tells you he is considering road blocks, checking supermarket trolleys and then telling people where they can and can’t go; I have to ask myself – am I in George Orwell’s 1984 or did something just change I am unaware about?
3.5 How do you determine what is essential work; when what I consider non-essential work carries on?
The Rules For You and the Rules For Me…
We are told to socially distance yet I’ve personally witnessed
– bin men crammed 3 to a cabin picking up the bins wearing no gloves
– no evidence given why the 1M rule (from WHO) becomes 2M rule if you’re in England
– members of parliament sitting next to each other
– police constables carrying out normal duties sat side-by-side in their police cars
3.5.1 In short, why is there one rule for the ruling elite and the police state and there appears to be another rule for the people. This doesn’t seem right nor fair to me.
3.5.2 Why is it that WHO Guidelines indicate a 1 metre distance yet the UK government has decreed that we have to maintain a distance of 2 metres? Are reports that we are too stupid to understand what this means true?
As a government ably supported by the media, you have spread fear and panic amongst the people that they are now scared of the very fabric of our great nation – our people.
Why are we not looking at the whole problem rather than coming up with short-term piecemeal solutions which will not work?
4.1 Why is the Government not giving advice on what people can do to boost their immune system through for instance taking Vitamin D3, C, A, Iodine and eating real food?
I haven’t seen any government advice about improving your immune system and feel that this is a fundamental lack of understanding, direction and woeful neglect.
It has been proven by numerous studies that eating fresh vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds has a positive impact on health yet this has not been mentioned.
Studies have also indicated that Vitamin D was woefully low in many COVID19 deaths yet the government have not been directing people to take this more.[ix]
4.2 Is the risk as great as the ‘un-biased’ experts believe that it is?
With 3,681,295 tests having been conducted and only 265,227 infections identified, it would appear that from these tests alone the infection rate is 7.2%.
If we extrapolate this out to the wider population, this could mean that 4,784,499 people have the virus currently.
If we further investigate the deaths by age, we see a pattern.
52% of deaths occurred in the over 80s, 39% of deaths between 60-79 and 8% of deaths in the 40-59 age group. Between ages of 0-19 has seen 0.06% of deaths and 20-39 only 0.72%.
However we have also seen that recovery is positive with an estimated 0.06% crude mortality rate or in laymans terms, I am 99.94% likely to recover from this virus and go about my day-to-day life without interference from the government.
This indicates to me several things:
If the chance of dying from the disease is slim (as indicated by Professor Whitty on several occasions), then the logical rational thing to do is immediately open up all businesses and destinations to anyone under the age of 60 given that the likelihoods of them dying from cancer, heart disease, diabetes or chronic respiratory disease is far higher (10.9%) than dying with COVID19.[x]
With the over 60’s it could be argued that a slower gradual process could take place over a series of months as the virus dies out.
Let me explain this in pictorial format.
All data based on data from Government sources and based on my COVID19 Modelling using the alleged Reproduction rate of 4 (pre-lockdown) meaning that for every person infected they will pass this onto 4 people.
A Room of 50 People will have 4 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 16 With the result of potential deaths of 1 person
A Room of 100 People will have 7 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 28 With the result of potential deaths of 1 person
A Room of 150 People will have 11 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 44 With the result of potential deaths of 1 person
A Room of 250 People will have 18 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 72 With the result of potential deaths of 1 person.
A Room of 500 People will have 36 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 144 With the result of potential deaths of 2 people
A Room of 1,000 People will have 72 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 288 With the result of potential deaths of 3 people
A Room of 3,000 People will have 16 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 864 With the result of potential deaths of 7 people
A Room of 10,000 People will have 720 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 2,880 With the result of potential deaths of 23 people
A Room of 20,000 People will have 1,441, People carrying the infection: 1,441 with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 5,764 With the result of potential deaths of 45 people
A Room of 30,000 People will have 2,161 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 8,644 With the result of potential deaths of 67 people
A Room of 50,000 People will have 3,602 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 14,408 With the result of potential deaths of 112 people
A Room of 100,000 People will have 7,205 People carrying the infection with R Rate 4 could result in New Infections 28,820 With the result of potential deaths of 224 people.
What does this tell us?
However this is assuming a reproduction rate of 4 and right now the reproduction rate is hovering between 0.5 and 0.9.
This is also assuming no precautionary measures are taken at say an outside sporting event of wearing masks (for people who suspect they may be ill or vunerable).
In reality, the risk is much lower as has been proven by the Swedish model.
So the government could open up sporting events and business events again – if appropriate safeguards were taken (even though arguments could be construed to say that no real precautions are necessary given point 4.1).
Other Source data:
Daily Death Statistics NHS
[i] A test constructed by notable business and mindset expert, Andy Shaw
[ii] Covid19 Cases & Deaths https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
[iii] Cancer Statistics https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics-for-the-uk#heading-Zero
[iv] Heart disease Statistics https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-and-circulatory-diseases-in-numbers/death-rates-by-local-authority
[viii] Government SAGE Participants
[ix] Vitamin D Article
[x]World Health Organisation Probability (%) of dying between age 30 and exact age 70 from any of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or chronic respiratory disease (Global strategy for women's, children's and adolescents' health)