CV19 - Cure Worse Than The Disease? (Vol 19)

On a similar note:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/22/co...

Glad we kept off licenses open whilst shutting gyms/tennis courts/golf clubs.....

I seem to recall both James6112 and Gadgetmac putting exactly the same personal stories about what their wife did in a GP surgery and how had some (the same) medical issue that was sorted easily and how he works from home.

The details were far too similar to be a coincidence imo - I have I called him out for it on a couple of occasions which he never came back on to deny..........

Well, given the number of articles and platforms available, one can truly find anything on covid that one might want to be looking for and even get it published. That was obvious with all manner of claptrap being published earlier and I suppose it remains entirely true today, just perhaps in the other direction in some cases.

So in summary the paper states - "The COVID-19 pandemic in UK was iatrogenic, as it did not originate from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but originated from Midazolam use in euthanasia and then likely later from mass vaccination. " Lots of other unsupported statements in there as well.

I wonder if it got rejected from other reputable medical journals? At a guess the author isn't an intensivist - neither is the u-tuber that posted it.
Not to say that what happened during the pandemic wasn't a catastrophe though.

It's amusingly open about looking for data to fit a conclusion. The author, to be fair has admitted the uk data couldn't support his contention that vaccination caused excess deaths despite trying very hard to find a link.......but then later it didn't stop him from still concluding it must still have been so anyway....

A bad paper is a bad paper tbh, irrespective of 'peer review' and publication in some 'named' journal. One saw that repeatedly over the pandemic that either or both was absolutely no barrier to some tosh being published and much the same thing applies here even if it is one that concludes something that some people here clearly believe in....

I think there should be a review of the use of Midazolam.

It is clear that it was intended to encourage a comfortable death for elderly people affected by COVID in the event they could not be treated due to healthcare being overwhelmed.

When you consider this alongside the large scale discharges to care homes to clear hospital beds in the early stages of the pandemic, it should raise concern about the risk it was given to people who might have otherwise survived.

That said, the idea that the IFR was different at the beginning of the pandemic vs the end is simply wrong. The issue is the case ascertainment rate which confounds the data.

In the beginning we captured only a small number of cases, which were the most serious. The only testing was taking place in hospitals.

Later, we were carrying out vast numbers of tests every day. So we captured many more cases, including mild ones where people were not even ill.

This provides a simple and obvious explanation for the changing fatality rate that is completely unrelated to Midazolam. The fact that this has been missed brings the entire paper into question.

I agree, I have read this paper now and it is nonsense:

https://www.medclinrese.org/open-access/excess-dea...

The author uses IFR and CFR as if they are interchangeable. They have no understanding of case ascertainment bias. That leads to two related false assumptions, that COVID was not prevalent in spring 2020 and that the excess deaths at that time must have a different cause.

Everything that follows is founded on this mistake, with theories expressed as ‘likely’ based entirely on the authors beliefs.

The Gosport hospital scandal was IMHO a disgusting cover up. I think it was far more chilling than any of us can imagine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-65...

There are some errors which give rise to the assumption that there not excess covid deaths although clearly the policy which was in place did, I strongly suspect, give rise to people dying with covid who may not have died if they had not been given midazolam.

If you move elderly and frail people from hospitals into care homes and then have a DNAR policy and potentially liberal use of midazolam then excess deaths are likely.

I can only cite an example of a situation that I was aware of in the early days

70 year old who wasn’t so well with covid - wife kept on ringing 111 and the advice was to treat at home, he continued to worsen and despite numerous calls to 111 they refused to accept that he needed to be in hospital. Eventually after a lot of pressure from wife, taken into hospital and given medication which the doctors refused to say what it was. At some point in the 24 hours before he died, the doctor said to wife “does he know that he is dying?”. Went down as a covid death.

We will never know if he had gone to hospital earlier and been treated whether he would have lived but it looked strange to me at the time.

Compare and contrast to a younger person who rang 111 with covid, they got regular phone calls from the medics to check he was OK and was told that if he hadn’t started improving then they would take him to hospital.

I'm sure there were many instances of poor care, especially in the early days of the pandemic. But that's not what Wilson Sy is claiming. He's alleging that 1) there wasn't a Covid virus in the first place, and that 2) there was "systemic euthanasia" in place. Designed by whom, he doesn't say.

Come on, BVD, you're a sensible person. Do you really believe that there was no Covid virus, and that the April 2020 peak was caused by medics across the UK deciding to euthanise old people for reasons unknown? Oh, and presumably the same happened in other countries with a spike of Covid: their medics were part of this "systemic euthanasia". It's typical conspiracy theory cobblers.