1. Without PCR testing data mortality and morbidity would not be attributable to the novel virus and if this attribution is false there must therefore be other explanations for the ‘pandemic’.

.@Jikkyleaks .@Kevin_McKernan 2. Whilst scandals about PCR testing are well known a materially important aspect of PCR testing has been given scant attention and that is cross reactivity (or crosstalk). This is where other viruses, such as common colds or flus etc., trigger a false positive PCR result.

1. How did antibiotics use change during the Covid-19 'pandemic'?

And what happened to the stockpiles of antibiotics Fauci said were needed?

In our latest article we pulled together material on policy changes on antibiotic use during the 'pandemic'. 2. Antibiotics are essential in a pandemic. This view is motivated by the fact that in his 2008 article in the Journal of Infectious Diseases (which reported on autopsies of well-preserved victims of the Spanish Flu pandemic), Anthony Fauci concluded that:

1. Did flu vanish or was there a failure to search for it?

There has been a collective and systemic failure in flu surveillance and flu death reporting systems in the UK during 2020 and into 2021. 2. The UK FluDetector system, which uses machine learning to track flu using Google Trends data, reported that flu disappeared in 2020/21. This is contradicted by Google’s own data and UKHSA reports, both of which report a clear signal for flu in the UK in 2020/21.

"Sensors set to Off"

Did Covid-19 quarantines hide the flu?

Quarantines were sold as measures to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are claimed to have prevented the spread of flu.

But what if there is another explanation....... 1. Flu tests are recommended to be administered within 4 days of symptom onset. If they are administered after 4 days, they would likely produce a false negative result for someone with flu (flu tests are rarely administered routinely anyway).

See:

wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/sensors-set-…

1. The latest ONS COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness report is out. It claims strenuous efforts were made to account for confounders however for the non-covid mortality they state a BIG caveat:

.@SarahCaul_ONS 2. This isn't mere 'residual confounding'. In previous reports the ONS claimed a healthy vaccinee effect. Despite their efforts this HUGE confounding bias remains, and they plainly don't care.

This means none of the claims made by the ONS for vaccine effectiveness can be trusted

1.We showed ONS England data from November did NOT support vaccine efficacy claims. The ONS’s December report claims anomalies we identified are caused by healthy vaccinee effect.

We examined the new ONS data and found NO evidence to support this claim: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.… 2. The healthy vaccinee effect occurs when people closer to death are too ill to be vaccinated and so become concentrated in a shrinking unvaccinated population, thus increasing the group’s mortality rate.

1.Our research team have now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that despite seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness this conclusion is doubtful because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies.

See: https://t.co/PIkA4fVxBHdx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.…
2.The data appear to show lower non-Covid mortality for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated. Odd. Also unvaccinated mortality rates peak at the same time as the vaccine rollout peaks for the age group, then falls and closes in on the vaccinated. This is not natural