covid newsreal
Global panic over what the Sars-CoV-2 virus might do in terms of killing extraordinarily high numbers of people justified extraordinary 'lockdowns' in spring 2020, but 10 months into 'the new normal' most agree that it is not the 'killer virus' people once feared it was.

Nevertheless, the official position that Covid-19 constitutes a 'significant public health threat' remains unchanged, leading many to doubt what they are being told about the pandemic and opening a vacuum in public information that has been filled with conspiracy theories about deliberate skulduggery.

Using only official British government figures, Joe and Niall analyze the pandemic as it has played out in the UK - which official figures and media reporting suggest was both the 'worst hit' country AND the country where counter-measures were applied most stringently.

Based on published government statistics and peer-reviewed scientific papers on Covid-19, they draw the only logical and reasonable conclusion that can be drawn: governments have long since realized the virus does not constitute a public health threat, but other agendas have since hijacked the global containment effort.

Running Time: 01:05:18

Download: MP3 — 59.8 MB

Here is the transcript:

Joe: In the same way a lot of crazy, Kraken, Lyn Wood, Alex Jones type conspiracy stuff, about the you know, the....

Niall: The election.

Joe: The election, Trump election and all that kind of stuff. What went on that takes it too far. There's a lot of stuff on the web out there about covid that takes it too far as well. But there's still a lot of, on different kinds of people with different social media accounts, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and stuff. Different doctors who have spoken out have summarized the problems with the entire covid situation, and the narrative around covid, that it's not what people are really told it is, basically. It doesn't mean there isn't a virus but it's primarily these people, have a problem and rightfully so, have a problem, not just them, but a lot of people in most countries that are subjected to these restrictions. They have a problem with the restrictions, with the lockdowns

Niall: Absolutely, protests going on everywhere.

Joe: And the ways in which the government is handling it, and it's not that just people are like we don't like lockdowns. We're pissed off, let's have a protest. It's more that a lot of those people kno, have data and have valid or solid arguments against the way the government has proceeded with handling this - I shouldn't say so-called pandemic. I dont think it's a pandemic. I think it's an epidemic. Calling it a pandemic probably isn't really accurate because it was very different in different countries. A pandemic is like, it's global, it's worldwide. It's obviously very different in each country.

So you have to look at each specific country, look at all the data for that country and then decide if that was an epidemic or not. And there's no argument to say that yeah, certainly there was an epidemic in a lot of countries. But calling it a pandemic just doesn't work because there are certain countries that were virtually free of the virus, had very little experience of it at all and other countries that quickly got over it and it was gone. You know what I mean? So it's not a pandemic where it's surfing the world having exactly the same effects or very similar effects on people all around the world. It's not true. So it's an epidemic in different countries you know.

Niall: The thing I don't understand is we've got the dissenting views are so numerous and so highly qualified, many of them informally in government themselves. These people are not just lay people like ourselves who can look at the numbers and come to a rational point of view that is a counter argument to the prevailing one. These people have clout. Some of them ARE in organizations like the World Health Organization!

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: That guy Navarro I think his name is. The British guy...

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Pleading in December or November, pleading with national governments to stop the lockdown!

Joe: Stop using lockdowns, yeah.

Niall: This is not our policy from the World Health Organization. So what are you doing, he is saying to them on TV!

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: And yet it persists.

Joe: Yeah well the genesis I think of the whole thing that they've kept going from the very beginning was the cause or the source of the problem, at the very beginning, was the hysteria that dominated back in March and April. I don't know if it was deliberately produced or not but it dominated most of Christendom, most of the western world and most of the world really, the hysteria around this being a deadly virus. Remember at the very beginning when images of people dropping dead in the street in China and stuff.

Then they just went with it. Maybe initially they weren't sure. This is just my opinion, but it's backed up by a lot of early research into this virus that was done both in China and in Europe, that it did look rather strange to a lot of epidemiologists and biochemists who were looking at it initially, it looked strange to them. You can say that after the fact they realized it wasn't man-made but initially there were a lot of people who looked at it and put it out and published papers and made public statements that it didn't look natural, a natural mutation of a coronavirus and...

Niall: The French guy, the guy who got a Nobel Prize for cracking the AIDS virus, was on TV here in France saying, 'it must be man made' and gave his reasons.

Joe: Tight.

Niall: People in the studio were like what?

Joe: Right. So people in government have authorities and their scientific advisors who probably knew that or came across that information and assumed it was possibly true at the beginning, all freaked out because of course if you come across a virus that has been obviously tinkered with by human hands, the only hands that can really tinker with it, right, then your going to immediately go 'bio-warfare'.

Niall: At Least as a possibility...

Joe: Yes, if you see that, you're thinking you got err on the side of caution and go full bore, biochemical attack response. And that seems to have been what happened initially. And sure, maybe that didn't go away. Maybe some people in certain circles are still fairly convinced that it was man-made. But especially with the experience in China and a lot of the work the Chinese had done on it, they realized very quickly that it wasn't really a deadly pathogen. Even if it was man made they weren't, it wasn't a deadly pathogen in the sense of the black plague or even the Spanish flu or anything like close to that.

Niall: Yeah

Joe: They knew fairly quickly from Chinese studies that it was primarily a danger, a health risk or a mortal risk to the same demographic that the flu is deadly to, which is primarily older people, people at or around the age of the normal life expectancy age and also most importantly, who are in pretty bad health. So given that that was known fairly early on, at least from China studies, from the experience of the Chinese and what they had been saying, and then it was shown very quickly that that was the people in western countries who also were vulnerable to it.

So at that point then sure, it gets very complicated in terms of should they have modified their policies in terms of how they dealt with it? A lot of people have been saying all along that 'well in that case, isolate the vulnerable if you really want to protect those people, isolate those people, the people who test positive for it or who are not even people who test positive for it but rather the people who are vulnerable to it'. Isolate the very vulnerable and susceptible people in care homes, people with who are in bad health and people at home, living in their own homes in bad health, lock them down basically. Give them lots of care but leave the rest of the population alone because it's not dangerous to them.

And in that sense, that's the single best argument I haven't seen anybody really refute in any serious way or any meaningful way, that the policy should always have been to isolate the people who are vulnerable and let natural herd immunity spread through the healthy population. That's how you make this virus join the ranks of the common cold or the corona virus that causes the common cold or the flu virus. The way it works is when you get exposed to a virus, all the different parts of your immune system, different cells that make up your immune system, antibodies etc., they basically break down a virus. They chop it up into many different pieces and its constituent parts, recognizable parts. It's quite intelligent. It's amazing how intelligent it seems to be whenever you're actually looking into how your immune system works and how your body works in general. But your immune system chops up into pieces and then, what do you call those, a police lineup.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: So it lines them up and there are different cells in your immune system, that look at all the different parts and memorize them and says, "Okay, got your number, got your number, got your number." And that's basically then how they recognize any part of that virus. Different cells of your immune system are able to then recognize not just that virus but any time it mutates. Because any mutation that happens later on, and mutations do happen obviously, in that virus, the mutation will only be quite small, they'll only be small mutations. In the virus small parts of the virus would change in the genetic code, will change only very lightly, leaving the rest of it the same as it was before, meaning that your immune cells that recognized would still recognize it even if it only mutated a small amount, which they all normally do.

Niall: Right.

Joe: Generally speaking they only mutate a small amount. And also when mutations happen the mutations are usually deleterious. The kind of general direction that mutations go in for viruses is that they become more transmissible but less deadly, less dangerous, less lethal, less good at doing the job that they set out to do, which is to invade all our cells. They are less able to do that and that's how they then join the ranks of the normal seasonal flu, like cold and flu viruses. A virus like that would come along and join those ranks eventually after being subjected to this process of, in the bodies of the majority of the population where it's broken down and recognized and then all those people get immunity to it, once they get immunity to it, the next time they come in contact with it, the virus doesn't get a chance. The immune system immediately responds, recognizes, responds and takes care of it very quickly because its not reproducing in your body. Because it has been killed off, you're not transmissible. You can't transmit it to anybody. So all those people who have been isolating because they are vulnerable can come back out of their homes as soon as that kind of herd immunity has been achieved, and this is hundred years old science.

Niall: You just read the book to me. Yeah and they know this.

Joe: That's what they have been doing for over a hundred years. But for some reason - and I'm giving them an out in a certain sense - like I said, initially they thought it was a man made virus and therefore possibly a bio-weapon attack from somewhere and they went crazy. But then it seems that for some reason they didn't stop with that extreme reaction and kept it going. And have kept it going for more than nine months now. And of course that has had a very bad effect on hospitals, that kind of hysteria has had a bad effect on the healthcare system.

Niall: As a whole not just dealing with this.

Joe: Right, because it is still being presented as this deadly virus to everybody when it's not deadly to everybody. Like is said, it's only deadly, only a danger to a small percentage of the population. But from March and April you've had a lot of hospital staff being sent home.

Niall: To protect them from contracting it.

Joe: Well, to protect the staff from getting it and also to stop the transmission you know. In same way people are told that lockdown and self isolate, not see their friends and family stuff like that, a similar policy was instituted in hospitals to the greatest extent possible, in order to stop the contact between people, between members of the hospital staff and hospital staff and patients and stuff, in the belief this was something that was going to sweep through the community. Back in April and May they sent en mass, sent large numbers of people from in the UK and in other countries, in Spain, in France in the US, pretty much in all countries concerned, they sent elderly people who were in hospital for whatever illness they had, back to their care homes or their residential homes. And they said explicitly, in anticipation of a wave of covid patients, people coming down with serious covid symptoms of all ages. That's why they set up the nightingale hospitals in the UK. They repurposed a conference centre and put five hundred beds in there with a possibility for five thousand or something like that and there were several of those in the US as well and Several of them were in the UK.

Niall: The ship in New York Harbour.

Joe: The ship in New York Harbour and it never came. The bizarre thing is that they knew at that stage that it was not going to come, that there was not going to be large numbers of young people or people of all ages, who were going to come down with this. That was proven.

So that's one thing they did and as a result of that, what happened was, they emptied hospitals of elderly people who were frail and in need of health care in anticipation of having to treat a lot of young people and obviously young people from the government's point of view, young people are more important than older people. Older people, from the government's statistician point of view, they're dry tinder. They're going to burn up anytime now anyway so there's no point in spending too much resources on them so they send them back home.

Niall: And they don't generate tax.

Joe: Right, but at least those people do healthcare while they are still alive. But in this case because of the hysteria, they got no healthcare because they were sent back home and because it was covid, a pandemic, a virus circulating around, they had to be isolated, they had to be left alone. If you go back to the list there Scottie there's one that you just had up there. there's that part, but 24,000, those two actually. What's the first one there in 2020? Okay not that one. So go to the next one and the following. That one, '40,000 extra deaths at home in England and Wales since the pandemic began'.

Now if you scroll down a little bit it says right there in the second paragraph I think or is it the first paragraph? Third paragraph, 'Of this number - so 40,000 plus - of this number just 3,881 were deaths directly involved in covid-19.

So there were 40,000 excess deaths in care homes, extra deaths compared to the average over the past number of years, this year primarily not just in March, April and May but throughout the year. But, there was obviously a spike in March and April, but it continued on. But a lot of those deaths were as a result of that hysterical move at the beginning to throw all of these people who died in their homes and in care homes, out of hospitals that were getting treated or needed ongoing treatment. They sent them home and left them there to the point where the doctors wouldn't even go near them because they were afraid of giving them covid or spreading covid, whatever. They basically were left alone in care homes and in residential homes. And, as you can see, 40,000 of them died.

Go back to the article again please Scottie. There's 24,000 excess in care home deaths and then the first one just before that was 40,000 extra deaths at home. So this is specifically in residential houses and the other ones, so 40,000 in residential houses of which 37,000 were not covid related and 24,000 in care homes that were not covid related. There's one there begins with BMJ, that one yeah, that's from earlier this year and that's the British Medical Journal which is based in Cambridge university in England and only a third of the excess deaths in the community in England and Wales can be explained by covid 19 new data have shown. At the bottom there,
"At a briefing hosted by the science media..."
This is David Spiegelhalter, who's a very famous statistician in the UK,
"...explained that over the past five weeks," that's from some time in May, "care homes and other community settings had had to deal with the staggering burdens of 30,000 more deaths than would normally have been expected as patients were moved out of hospitals that were anticipating high demand for beds. Of those 20,000 only 10,000 had covid specified on their death certificate."
So that's 20,000. That's similar to the other 24. So there you have 40,000 excess deaths non-covid related in homes and you have 24,000 - because that other article is a bit more updated - that's a total of 64,000 excess deaths this year and probably more by now because those are a few month old, that data. There's probably more.

But then what I can't understand, the only conclusion I can draw, the conclusion I have to draw is that the official stats show that this year, because now they have them for because we're into the new year for last year, this is in the UK, there were 90,000 excess deaths compared to what would be expected or from the average over the past few years. So 90,000 excess deaths is their total for last year. And of those we've seen in the article, those 64,000 were not covid-related but, lockdown related or lockdown affects related. Not just lockdown in the sense of lockdown and the effects it has on the healthcare system and providing primary healthcare to vulnerable people.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: So

Niall: It's as if the cure is worse than the disease.

Joe: Yeah. But what I can't understand is how they don't see this and why they continue on. Maybe you could say they made a big mistake and messed up big time and are trying to ease themselves out of it now and hope it goes away, hope that nobody notices. But the data is all there.

Niall: 'Politically we're in too deep now. We have to ease ourselves out of it.' But they don't seem to be easing themselves out. We'll see. That's why I was wondering with Trump gone and the old order restored, normality as certain people see it restored, maybe now there will be some backing away.

Joe: Maybe yeah.

Niall: Of course they're never going to admit to having done anything fatally wrong. There's been some contrition, "Well come on, hang on. We didn't know", op-eds in mainstream papers, where yes that was wrong this was wrong, but we didn't know because there was a global pandemic and there was panic everywhere. I can give them a bit of an out but not complete out per se, but I can at least see where the scales weigh up. Because if you have a panicked population and its of no doing of your own as a government, it's because their hearing from international media about a situation, your population is spooked already. You have to at least look like you're taking this seriously.

There have been countries where they didn't take any of this seriously and they had consequences. One that comes to mind is Belarus last summer. Now it's complex because Belarus was probably subject to foreign interference. The president there, Lukashenko, certainly claimed that. But when you get foreign interference it can only amplify something that's already current in a population. It was interesting that in the hundreds of thousands of people who did protest against their election last summer, you could see many of them were wearing masks on the streets. This is a population that was explicitly told the opposite, "Don't wear masks, don't mind any of this stuff, there's foreign shenanigans going on." Lukashenko more or less said "It's a scamdemic," or "It's a fake pandemic," etc. But much of his population responded not to him, they went with the appearance of what was going on internationally. So when they protested they were wearing hygienic masks. They weren't exactly social distancing because they where thronging the streets

Joe: Right.

Niall: But they were signalling that they were taking this much more seriously than their own government.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: So I suppose the point I'm making is that, you're between a rock and a hard place.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: To some extent if you're in government or media or some position of responsibility. The cat is already out of the bag. Even if that cat is actually just a cute little kitty, presents no real danger or threat to anyone, it's already given the impression of being the Black Death.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: So their acting on that.

Joe: Yeah exactly. There is a narrative but, like I said, it goes back to the hysteria that was promoted and was put out there and I have questions over whether the governments actually knew that, and I think they did. The data was there. I know they should have known, let's say. At the very least they should have known that the hysteria was unwarranted and all the policies they put in place as a result of that hysteria about it being a deadly pandemic to everybody, is what has caused some suffering and so many unnecessary deaths.

But if you just go back to the list there Scottie. Just give me that one. That one, for example, is in Northern Ireland. "2,700 Northern Ireland health workers are self-isolating." Now those are 2,700 health workers, i.e., nurses, doctors, GP's, everything, are not available in Northern Ireland which isn't a big place.

Niall: Population 1.5 million.

Joe: 1.5 million. They're self-isolating because they have had a PCR test, a test that they put through dozens of cycles to the point where it will pick up anything and they're very unreliable and there's been a lot of stuff on PCR tests being unreliable. Most people who have a positive PCR test have very mild or no symptoms whatsoever. And if they have no symptoms they're not contagious they're not transmitting anything to anybody else. Just go back again Scottie. Keep it on that list. So and then scroll along.

Another example that we can get into is that they messed up the healthcare system basically by throwing people out of hospitals and also throwing staff out of hospitals. This one kind of piqued my interest. It's from October this year and it's from a city in Northern Ireland called Derry. It's a doctor saying that the hospital was like a war zone with covid patients. He goes on to say blah, blah, blah. This was in October last year and that it was like a war zone. This is the headline of the article: It's like a war zone. So I thought, well, I can actually ask for the data. It was a Freedom of Information request. I asked for the data for admissions, i.e., how many patients were in the hospital. I wanted to know for that month to see if it was true that it was like a war zone. They would have been falling out the windows, right.

Niall: Inundated to overflowing.

Joe: But if you go to the PDF Scottie, on the pop-up. Yes, so there's the Freedom of Information, the Social Care Trust and that's my request. I just wanted accurate data on the number of multi-admissions to Altnagelvin during the period. I wanted for the past four years basically, 2017 to 2020. So they just recorded that. There you have 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 in the admissions and if you look at the total for the year down the bottom to give you an idea, 2020 compared to previous years, overall it's about 30% less, 2020 admissions plus day cases compared to the previous three years. If you go specifically to October, just on that 2020 admissions for example in October there, you see that it's 1,810, which again, is about 30% less. You go across there you see over 2,000 for all of the others, almost 2000, pretty much over 2,000 for all of the others. So it's about 30% overall down in that month of October for that hospital.

Niall: So why would doctors...?

Joe: So why is he saying it's a war zone? It can't be . Well this is part of the problem. What they did because of their hysteria around this virus, still believing in October this year and still to this day, believing that it's something that is deadly to a big spread of the population, including young people, children and everybody, that they're all going to be walking dead coming into hospitals. Since March and April at the beginning, they emptied a lot of hospitals in a certain sense. Well they emptied them of patients and removed a lot of staff as well, especially when they started testing them and if they tested positive then they had to stay at home, so they didn't transmit it. But they designated certain hospitals - and this happened across the world across the western world in particular - they designated certain hospitals as covid centres and anybody who had anything that could be called serious covid symptoms, were sent to that one hospital. And not just to that one hospital but to only one section of that hospital and the rest of them were essentially empty of covid patients.

This is part of the planning, the pandemic so-called supposed pandemic planning, to stop the spread of it. You make one hospital the centre for covid patients and you don't necessarily tell people to not go to hospital for other things, but people didn't go to hospital. This is something that's very well known as well because you had various different government ministers at a certain point in May and June telling people, "Listen, go to hospital if you need to," because the vast majority of the population who would have otherwise gone to hospital for various treatments, people with cancer patients or people who had various symptoms or illnesses that needed ongoing care and tests for certain things, they didn't go because they were afraid because of the hysteria.

Niall: They were afraid to get it for themselves. But they also felt they were doing their part.

Joe: They wanted to protect the system

Niall: I just have something. I'll stay at home and work it off myself.

Joe: Right.

Niall: When in fact many of them should have gone because now, how many stories have we heard of people finding out six months later they missed a cancer screening?

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Now they have cancer.

Joe: We'll look at that in a second but people didn't go to hospital so that's why you had a lot of these people going around hospitals - you might have seen them on the web - people with cameras going to hospital saying 'Where's the pandemic? This hospital is empty." They're walking around an empty hospital. That's because they haven't gone to the one in their area, the one hospital that is the designated covid centre and that's the hospital this doctor in Derry is talking about where one section of that hospital has very few patients compared to previous years, but he was describing it as a war zone because what he is describing is one section of the hospital were they have stuffed all the people that they believed had covid symptoms into that one area and they weren't allowed to put them anywhere else in the hospital, because they still had a few people in other parts of the hospital. To contain the spread of the virus, they had to concentrate them in one area of the hospital.and that part of the hospital was overflowing like a war zone.

And the point is, arguably, it was all unnecessary because the most important factor about all of this, is that it has been known even before March, like I said, from the Chinese experience and then through experience in western countries after that very quickly, in March and April, that it was not a danger to the vast majority of the population. They're talking about 96, 97 percent of the population that doesn't fall into that category of elderly with long term underlying health conditions. There's only a very small percentage of the population who are seriously ill in that way who should have been isolating. So none of these policies were necessary. If you just go Scottie, to flesh out that point, the one on Italy. Over 99 percent of coronavirus patients in Italy who died had other health problems.

Niall: Yeah, that was reported...

Joe: ...Of course....

Niall: ....months ago.

Joe: And that's the same case in the US. It was 94 percent in the US from the CDC. In the UK something like 94 percent in Spain. It's all in the mid to high 90's. The patients were mostly elderly, but some of them slightly younger. But almost all of them 95 plus percent had serious long-term underlying health conditions and like I said, at or above the normal life expectancy. These are people that the governments never really cared about before. They didn't care when they died. Of course the counter to that point is that, "Well, you were saying those people deserve just to be left to die if there is a new respiratory virus going around?" The answer is NO. They should be given care obviously, but as I said previously...

Niall: They're not!

Joe: They weren't at the very beginning. They were not being given care. They were being denied primary healthcare by being dumped out of hospitals in expectation of large numbers of young people coming in, which was like I keep saying, was pretty well discernible or known early on that that was not going to happen. There was not going to be a wave of people of all ages coming into hospitals. Only this demographic.

So the fact that 99 or 95 percent of the population have serious underlying health conditions and are very old, it should inform your policy in terms of how you looked at this virus. You should not see it as something that cuts a swathe through the entire population indiscriminately killing young and old. It poses the same danger to the same demographic as other seasonal respiratory viruses.

Yeah the most common comorbidity driving coronavirus, the big one there is hypertension, i.e., that's high blood pressure and people think that high blood pressure is a normal thing but high blood pressure is serious when it's really chronic. High blood pressure is like an inflammation of all of your vascular system basically. Its systemic inflammation. It's really bad when you get it, really highly correlated with severe illness or death if you have hypertension and a respiratory virus. Type 2 diabetes is very high as well. Heart disease. So these are all people with chronic adrenal failure. These are all people who had this before they get the virus/

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And the virus just makes it too difficult for them to push through it and they die and that's what happens all the time, every year, and nobody ever really cared very much about it before. Just go to the next one Scottie. I just got this today actually. It's the latest from the National Health Service in England. I posted this frequently on my Facebook page every time they released it. But it's their data on covid-19 deaths by age group and pre-existing conditions. You see there that of the total number of deaths that they say are from covid I suppose, they describe it at 58,000, 56,000 had pre-existing conditions and only 2,446 did not have pre-existing conditions. So that's a large, large majority, a drop in the high 90 percentage of people. Again, it mirrors what we've known from Italy and Spain and everywhere else.

And if you just go to the next one of those. It shows again from the same National Health Service in England website, the type of preexisting condition. They're even saying here "Covid 19 deaths by type of preexisting condition - asthma, chronic kidney disease, chronic neurological disorder." But interestingly it's been known as well - dementia, chronic pulmonary disease.

The thing is, they say that covid causes chronic pulmonary disease or causes acute respiratory disease, which is probably not that different from chronic pulmonary disease, but these people are dying from covid supposedly and covid is obviously just coronavirus disease and the symptoms of that disease are all of those things that those people already had.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And that ultimately, very likely, given that the majority of them are in their 80s, they're going to die of that relatively soon anyway. And that's not being insensitive. I'm just saying those people have a very short expected life span. When you're 84 and you have long term kidney disease or chronic pulmonary disease, or long term hypertension or chronic diabetes and you're in your 80s, you don't have a long life expectancy anyway.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And like I keep saying, those are the people who have been dying supposedly, as a result of or from this virus. It hasn't been healthy young people. Sure you can pull out some statistics and stuff and show there have been young people who have died from it and the media made sure to inform everybody of that repeatedly when it happened. But I can equally show you media reports that hardly anybody knew about or heard about from previous years, of young people - 14 year olds, 26 year olds, 25 year olds, 30 years olds in perfect health dying from the flu. One article I was looking at had a list of 12 people in the UK that they just picked from a particular year, a few years ago, they reported on at Daily Mail, that they had all died from the flu.

The fact that young people died from this particular virus is not unique to this virus. It happens with other seasonal flu-like illnesses or viruses as well.

Niall: I remember when we started looking at the comparative flu numbers, when this started last year. At first we were like, "Okay, hang on a second. The case to fatality ratio - that's the key figure because people want to have an idea of how many are dying once they caught something, then we can decide whether or not to panic, do something or just tell people to calm down - became apparent right away. That was not an easy thing to do because comparing previous winter flu seasons with SarsCov2 cycle of cases going up and how many were dying with it, it was very difficult because so many assumptions went into the earlier statistics about what constituted a death from....

Joe: Right.

Niall: ...a strain of influenza. For example, in the very latest stat you have from the NHS from the UK, that number of 54,000 dead from covid, in one table and then in the other table they explained well 52,000 some, the vast majority, had at least one comorbidity.

Joe: Most of them had two or three.

Niall: That contains in it an assumption for the middle table. The middle table says "Strictly speaking only 2,000 and something people in the United Kingdom have..."

Joe: "Have actually died from..."

Niall: "Have actually died from covid."

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: But that contains the mother of all assumptions! Which is that the health system is 100% perfect and it knows exactly what health status every single living being within the system is at because I would say to you, what if - this is a reasonable thing to ask, I think - what if those 2,000 people for whom we don't know, they seem to just drop dead? They got the virus and actually dropped dead like those videos from China. But I would say to you no, the health system is not perfect. We don't know that they did not in fact have underlying health issues.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: For which the virus came along and knocked them out.

Joe: Absolutely, that happens a lot.

Niall: And the same goes for the years in the past. Did someone really die from the flu? They were young, there was no apparent problem. They had been in a rugby match the day before. They were in top health it seemed. No one ever did autopsies.

Joe: No, they never bothered. They never cared before. So someone really wanted to know. It got really interesting, this virus in particular, and that brings me back to the claims at the beginning, by reputable, known world class epidemiologists, who said that this virus showed signs of not being natural. Of course others came out and said no that's false, all that kind of stuff. But still, that point was made by respectable knowledgeable people.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And that would suggest to me, that that would go some way to explain why they have such an interest in analyzing this particular virus up the wazoo and, as you were just saying, they never cared about previously. There have been new strains, new mutations of flu virus fairly regularly but they never cared about them in the past. In the winter of 2017/2018, so for that year of 2018, maybe or maybe it was 2017, one or the other, the UK reported an estimated 50,000 excess deaths from the flu. They estimated it but they didn't care. They just reported it. This year the official data there that you saw is the upper 50s or around 60,000 deaths from THIS particular virus In this past year, since March even, so it's not the full year. So there's something strange about the response to this virus that can't be explained...

Niall: It's phenomenal.

Joe: ...based on the effects of this virus on the population. It's like we've just explained, it follows a similar pattern to other seasonal respiratory viruses in terms of who it's dangerous to. The government never cared about other seasonal respiratory illnesses or viruses that cause respiratory illnesses. They never cared before, even when the estimated deaths from previous years were similar to the claimed deaths from this virus this year. They never cared and this year they really, really cared a lot.

So that's the big question. Why care so much when there isn't that much different and you knew from early on that it wasn't that much different from other similar corona viruses? Why the intense interest in this virus to the point where we are vaccinating, we are testing, we are trying to test the entire population? We know possibly why vaccines are developed. Let me just say it for the record. Vaccines are developed by vaccine manufacturers, generally speaking to improve people's health and stop them dying from deadly viruses. But, there's also another angle where vaccines, big pharma, and vaccine makers make a lot of money from them as well. So there's a financial motivation. I dont think it's rude to say that, right?

Niall: Will this thing finally lift?

Joe: Well yeah, but of course the obvious explanation for that it's as a result of the vaccines which are being rolled out. So if they want to turn down the dial on the covid lockdowns etc., etc., then they can do that using the vaccines as an explanation for why they can do it now. Their making sounds about that already in the UK. They're talking about some time March. The foreign minister, I think, said that in March they hope they will be able to wind down the lockdows. They're still talking about it now. This isn't conspiracy theory, it was in SAGE, the British government emergency group that directs national emergencies and that kind of stuff, that took control over, during the first pandemic.

Niall: That name is Orwellian .

Joe: SAGE, I know.

Niall: The wise elders.

Joe: SAGE in a creepy way. But they publish minutes of their meetings where they talked about exaggerating things in order to encourage compliance among the population and the same is true for vaccines because the government sees the vaccines as their responsibility, to get the vaccines out there. Any rational person would accept the likelihood that the government, especially at this time during a vaccine roll out, is maybe increasing the propaganda, increasing the messaging, let's say, in the media, in order to increase the vaccine uptake because they know there's a resistance among the population, a decent section depending on the country, to getting vaccines. So you want to hype the emotional messaging in order to get as many people as possible to take it up. Spread as much fear as possible in a certain sense.

Niall: The British media has.

Joe: Yeah in order to get as many people to take the vaccine.

Niall: Yeah, they have all kinds of figures. Everyone above 18, everyone by June .

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: Vaccinated.

Joe: We'll see.

Niall: By mid February, 15 million.

Joe: Maybe. They're running into some problems with the Pfizer vaccine right now, particularly the mRNA vaccine, the one that...

Niall: Is this the one where two dozen people's deaths are associated with it?

Joe: Thirty-two in Norway, yeah.

Niall: That's not conjecture. That's what's been reported.

Joe: That's the Norwegian government saying that. Norwegian health authorities say that. So they're wondering if they should stop. Mostly it has been people 75 and older and maybe with some health conditions, not sure. So they're saying maybe it's a good idea not to give those mRNA vaccines, the new ones that haven't really been tested on a wide population before and are a different technology from normal vaccines, that you shouldn't be giving those to elderly people who are in frail health basically because they seem to be dying in significant numbers.

And actually the numbers are significant because I think it was about 32 people in Norway, and the number of people they vaccinated was about 30,000. So, the death rate officially, technically, from not just technically, officially from the vaccine, from that MRNA vaccine, as far as it has gone so far, 30,000 people and 30 deaths, is one in a thousand, Which is a death rate of 0.1%, which is similar to the death rate from the virus.

Niall: Right.

Joe: So you can take your chance. The logical conclusion from that would be that, especially people who are 75 years and older, that their chances of dying from the virus are the same as dying from the vaccine. That's an official statistic. YouTube can't censor us for this because it can go and look at the Norwegians health minister's website and do the numbers yourself. That's also a 0.1% death rate at this point from the Pfizer vaccine, is 10,000 times greater than the death rate from the flu vaccine because the flu vaccine has a death rate at about one in ...

Niall: A hundred thousand or something?

Joe: No it's ten thousand times greater. One in ten million people, officially, die as a result of getting the flu vaccine. So it's a ten thousand times higher death rate from this vaccine than from the flu vaccine. So yeah, there's something very strange about the whole thing and a lot of people are talking about it but it's not being discussed in the mainstream really. The media is falling down on the job yet again as they have done many times before.

Niall: It's incredible. They've fallen down the job. There's an enormous gulf in information that's just begging to be filled. And of course what it's getting filled with is often the most crazy stuff.

Joe: Right.

Niall: Understandably, there's a vacuum there, people are asking questions.

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: It's been going on for a year now because it goes back past March. It was this week last year that it was really starting to spread from China and the panic about it you know.

Joe: So let me just look at my list there again Scottie, of my wonderful tabs. What's the last one? Did that one. Go back, Most Excess Deaths, scroll down. Yeah, so that's the one that says 91,000 more than the average in five previous years. Right, that's interesting because I just showed the data from the NHS in England which shows that their total is the upper 50,000's, 58,000 or something, dead from Coronavirus with only 2,000 actually not having...

Niall: A known, identified co-morbidity.

Joe: Yeah. But there's a shortfall then, about 60,000 from the officials data from the NHS. And this other source, wherever they got their data from, total excess deaths is 91,000. So only 60 have had a PCR test before they died. You could say that all 30,000 people who died.

Niall: They're assumed deaths or something.

Joe: Well, 60,000 people who died. You could claim if you wanted to, if you wanted to hype the corona virus threat, you could say that those 30,000 people are people who didn't have a PCR test. So the total number is 90,000 but NHS England only recognizes 60,000 because they're the only ones who've had a PCR test. That's how they define a covid death, if they have tested positive for SarsCov2 via a PCR test.

But as we talked about earlier in the show, that total of 90,000 causes a problem here. It's a bit of a conundrum. Maybe somebody else can figure it out. But of those 90,000 excess deaths official for last year, with 60,0000 of them having had people who had a positive PCR test before they died, there's that figure we came up with from other mainstream sources of 40,000 excess deaths in residential homes and 24,000 in care homes, that were not associated with covid.

So you can put those two together and that gives you a total of 155,000. Obviously it's the sames figures but one group is saying that of the 90,000 excess deaths, 60,000 of them had a positive PCR test and therefore are covid deaths, but there's other data saying that 64,000 of those 91,000 because 91,000 is the total excess deaths, 64,000 of them were not covid related.

Niall: Okay.

Joe: So there's obviously some maneuvering going on here with data and claims and claims of covid deaths and what is a covid death and what isn't a covid death and do they have covid on the death certificate? Do they not have covid on a death certificate? Did they have a PCR test? Does the PCR test matter? If someone's in hospital and they've had long term chronic kidney failure and they're 85 years old, is someone looking at that and saying they obviously didn't died from covid right? "They came to hospital and their kidneys failed and they had a positive PCR test, but I'm not putting that down as covid because their primary health condition was kidney failure and they died of kidney failure and the PCR test doesn't mean they died of covid." PCR tests at 45 cycles, like we were saying, will pick up anything. You'll find a tiny remnant of the SarsCov2 virus in a person like that's body, but how can you justifiably claim that that's a covid death when all you've done through a PCR test is find a tiny bit of the virus in their body? Did they have any symptoms of Covid? Or when they were admitted to hospital as they have been multiple times over the past 10 years with chronic kidney failure and then finally succumbed to it, was it chronic kidney failure that killed them?

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Make a judgment there, but you know what the reasonable one would be.

Niall: Well for someone to want to write a headline like that, more deaths in 2020 than what, in any year since WWII?

Joe: Yeah, yeah. Well they say that and then they say, "Actually it's not really since WWII because if you adjust it for age and population and various different other parameters, it's actually only the worst since 2003. But that headline is an example of the media, of yellow journalism, hyping stuff up to get clicks.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: They've got to do that and a lot of people aren't aware enough of that. They need to keep that in mind all the time. The media does that kind of thing specifically to make money, to get you to read their website because when you read their website, when you click on that hysterical, exaggerated, sensationalist title, as soon as you click on that website, they're getting money because there are ads popping up in front of your face as well. And that's the same with that Derry hospital one. The title of it was, 'Hospital Was Like a War zone, Says Derry Doctor'. But then you go down and read in the article he says actually no. He specifically says 'in the covid centre'. But then, by reading that, that leads you into lots more questions, especially if you have the data that I got from the Freedom of Information request showing that there were a lot less people in the hospital than there has been in the previous three years, during that time he said it was like a war zone, you say, okay, so it was his covid centre that was a war zone, but the hospital was relatively empty, 30 percent down on admissions, so it was relatively empty, the rest of the hospital.

So why did the writers of the article say that the HOSPITAL was like a war zone? Because that then conveys to the reader that this hospital is overflowing. and you know what's going to happen to people who need to go to that hospital.

Niall: They won't go.

Joe: They're not going to go. They're not going to go for the cancer screenings. They're not going to go if they feel a pain in their chest. And they're going to die at home. They're going to be added to that statistic of the rising number of 40,000 so far, of the excess number of people who died in their homes compared to last year, heart disease. There's another one I got there Scottie - the percentage of increase in, up something like a 50 percent increase in heart attacks and coronary deaths from heart disease.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And cancer deaths up a similar amount, in women, breast cancer up a similar 50-60 percent, dementia deaths up 50-60 percent compared to the average over the past five years. So, in most countries you look at the data, that's the same across those countries because all of these countries follow these same policies. It's hysterical, really counterproductive and destructive policies in terms of what they did to the population and what they did to the health care system and caused the same excess deaths unnecessarily by essentially depriving, as an end result, you deprived people in one way or another of primary health care, people who needed it. They cancelled cancer screenings, they cancelled elective surgeries.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: They're cancelling all these things. Not only are the hospitals cancelling people, turning them away, but also as we were just saying, when people read headlines like this, yellow journalism headlines, they're scared because they hear hospitals are like war zones and 'I'm not going there'.

Niall: Who wants to be in a war zone?

Joe: And not just a war zone but it's full of covid or something, so I'm not going there. I'm just gonna stay at home. I'm not going to get the treatment I need and I'm going to die. And those people didn't have covid. They're isolated in their homes and have been for a long time. They're not contracting any virus. They're dying from not receiving primary health care because of a hysterical government response to a virus that was known from the very beginning was not very much different from the normal seasonal flu like virus.

And the question is why did they have that hysterical response. And the only thing I can think of is, at least at the very beginning, they were convinced that it was not natural and they put in place these extreme measures of locking the entire population down. But then when they realized that while it may have been man-made, it was not deadly to the vast majority of the population, wasn't even dangerous to the vast majority of the population and they should have cut out those measures, should have quickly rolled those measure up and put them away and let things go back to normal and sort of provided primary health care to the population, stop scaring them and encourage them to get back out and live their own lives and to take care of themselves. But they didn't do that. So why would governments decide not to do that? Did they decide they were on to a good thing and wanted to....

Niall: Well this is the.....

Joe: ...have some more fun?

Niall: This the thing, this is the question for now. I won't even attempt to answer it because the show's running on. But, this thing has picked up steam and it has sort of got its own momentum now. It's got people talking about new normals, new realities, new systems. You're talking about big finance, long term plans, big agendas coming in and saying, "Wow! We can do that with populations?

Joe: Yeah.

Niall: "Remember that whole stuff we wanted to do to green the planet, to green civilization?"

Joe: So it was hijacked in a certain sense.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: The hysterical, albeit, justifiable understandable hysterical response at the beginning, when they saw what they could do and in fact someone said that...

Niall: Someone articulated...

Joe: Someone in the British government said that they were shocked. It might even have been Boris Johnson or someone like that, said that they were very surprised at...

Niall: At the uptake.

Joe: That people would do...

Niall: Obedience.

Joe: ...what they told them to do and then they went "Hang on a minute. We can use this for a different purpose." The problem is, that other purpose would not fly with the population. They would not accept these lockdowns and social distancing etc, to green the planet or to green the economy. But they will accept it if they're continually told or continuing to be told that there is a deadly pandemic that's a danger to their lives. So at this point that's the objective analysis on the whole situation.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: That's as far as you can go. That's the objective take on what's actually going on and why it's continuing to go on. It's not pretty but we do our best to deal with it and work through it and keep our eye on the ball and not believe the hype and try and figure it out, try and see through it all.

I'm not asking people to jump on the crazy conspiracy band wagon or anything like that or start seeing the world in a radically different way. I think people simply need to do something that is not unreasonable, and it's to have a healthy skepticism for government dictates and things that the media and government say in unison. To simply question it and don't swallow it wholesale. Even or maybe most particularly when it's the kind of messaging that is designed to provoke fear and provoke an emotional response from people. That's when you MOST need to be skeptical. But unfortunately that's when it's most difficult for most people to be skeptical, because they're put into a fear, fight or flight or state of terror, and it's hard for them to think rationally when they're in that state. But that's when they most need to do it.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: Rationally, that's the most likely time when there's some kind of skullduggery afoot.

Niall: Yeah, it's absolutely critical because...

Joe: And I'm not saying it is afoot. I'm just saying that's when it's most likely to happen.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: You know? Because the government will try and pass things off on the people. If it's ever going to do that, it will try and you know, get around people and get them to do things that aren't necessarily in their own benefit when they're in a state when they're most compliant. That's when anybody would do something like that. It's an opportunity to do something like that. I'm not saying they are doing it but I'm saying that's when you need to pay the most attention and to think most critically about the information that you're being given.

My prediction for what it's worth, they are going to wind it down, and I think it'll be over the next few months but I think the effects by that time, over a year of this kind of lockdowns and acclimatizing people to those new social norms, the government, the great reset people, the World Economic Forum, all that kind of stuff, will put out this information about wanting to green the economy, and change the way people work and change were people live for our benefit. right? They think that the year-long period of conditioning of the population to a new normal will have been sufficient and that's when they can wrap it up because they know that it's not going away anyway. You've heard people repeatedly say that there's no going back to the old way we did things. They said that almost at the very beginning.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: 'This is going to change the world forever.' There was a meme being put out there by someone, from very early on, that this was going to radically change, and people were like 'What the hell are you talking about? This is just a temporary thing. This is just a blip, a bump in the road.' And it's like, 'Are you on crack or something? What are you talking about?' But they kept it going long enough and for a lot of people anyway, that that period of conditioning would be enough - these people that are talking about pushing this green climate change preventing agenda - think that they've got enough material now in a certain sense, of people having been acclimated to this new normal, that it will stick.

Niall: Yeah.

Joe: And then they can wrap it up, but they won't wrap it up fully. They will keep the messaging going.

Niall: Do you think they're right? Do you think that most people are on the compliance side of this, even despite the protests and the apparent size of popular resistance here and there?

Joe: One big thing was people...

Niall: People believe.

Joe: One big thing was people telly-working, working from home and stuff and just not being out and about so often. But very much like the zoom meetings and all that kind of stuff, people not having to go into offices to work and all that kind of stuff, they're talking about that as well, basically people working from home for the rest of their lives. People who have been doing that for the past six, seven or eight months whatever, just keep doing that. And that could be a sizable percentage of the population. And for a lot of the people its appealing, to not have to go to the office. I don't think it's a good move but that could be one agenda or one aim that would have been achieved by this. But you'll have a significant percentage of the workforce that would no longer be going to work. Who knows?

Niall: We're a social species. Most of us cannot live like that!

Joe: Yeah well, we're going to find out, you know. It's all speculative obviously at this point and we'll see how it goes, but I'm hearing rumours in cyberspace, rumors in the twittersphere.

Niall: From your insiders Joe?

Joe: From my inside sources, that...

Niall: What is your book?

Joe: My big book of inside information. That's where I get all my...

Niall: Fantastic.

Joe: ...all my inside information and yeah, that it'll be wound up in the next few months, to some extent, to a large extent. But some things will stay.

Niall: Hopefully.

Joe: If not, if only the mentality in a certain sense. They're hoping to keep the mentality in the population. And of course now that people have gotten used to lockdowns and know what it's all about, you just have to say the word lockdown, the government just has to say the word lockdown in the future and boom! everyone knows what to do.