UK Government Data Proves the COVID19 Injections Cause Damage to the Innate Immune System that Worsens by the Week

UK Government data proves that the Covid-19 injections damage the innate immune system to a point where the not-vaccinated populations immune system is far superior to that of the fully vaccinated.

This data is presented exactly as given by the UK government. The US government is not providing this type of data. Even if they were, the US government provides only edited data which manages to occult the true facts and conclusions so that their narrative is protected from the truth.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 case-rates per 100,000 by vaccination status for each age group over the age of 18 in England, plus the average case rate per 100,000 for all adults in England –

Concerning the case, cases have been highest among the double vaccinated population in every age group, but the triple vaxxinated also have a car right far higher than the not-vaccinated population. This isn’t good news.
Now that we know the case-rates, we can use Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula to work out the real-world vaccine effectiveness.

Unvaccinated case rate – Vaccinated case rate / Unvaccinated case rate = Vaccine Effectiveness
e.g. Double Vaccinated 18-80+: 1,846.38 – 5,226.1 / 1,846.38 = minus-183%

Therefore, the average real-world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness in England for all adults as a whole is MINUS-183%. This means fully vaccinated adults are more likely to catch Covid-19 than unvaccinated adults. This is what vaccination has done to the people of England.

But vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.
Vaccines train the immune system to act and then once they’ve done the training they disappear. If you encounter the Covid-19 virus after being vaccinated then it isn’t the vaccine that springs into action to defend you against it, it’s you vaccine trained immune system that’s meant to spring into action.

Therefore, when authorities tell you that the effectiveness of a vaccine wanes over time, what they really mean is the immune system performance of the vaccinated wanes over time.

But to work out immune system performance we have to alter the calculation used to work out vaccine effectiveness slightly and divide our answer by either the largest of the vaccinated or unvaccinated case rate.
Unvaccinated case rate – Vaccinated case rate / largest of the unvaccinated / vaccinated case rate = Immune System Performance e.g. Double Vaccinated 18-80+: 1,846.38 – 5,226.1 / 5,226.1 = minus-65%

This means on average, fully vaccinated Brits currently have a 65% lower immune response than the unvaccinated have to Covid-19, but the following chart shows the true extent of the damage by age group as well –

Therefore, the average fully vaccinated person in England is down to the last 35% of their immune system for fighting certain classes of viruses and certain cancers etc.

So now we know for certain from UK Government that the Covid-19 injections damage the innate immune system to the point where a not-vaccinated persons immune system is much better at preventing infection. But what about when it comes to protecting against serious disease and death?

Well unfortunately, the same UK Government data shows the Covid-19 injections also damage the innate immune system to the point where a not-vaccinated persons immune system is much better at protecting a person against death as well.

Navy Commander Warns of “National Security Threat” from Mandatory Vaccination of U.S. Military Personnel
The following chart shows the Covid-19 death-rates per 100,000 by vaccination status for each age group over the age of 18 in England, calculated from the number of deaths found in the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report and the size of the double vaccinated population –

The double vaccinated population have the highest death rate per 100k in every age group except for the 18-29, and 40-49-year-olds. But we can expect in coming weeks for that rate to switch among the two anomalies based on historical trends that show things get worse for the vaccinated population by the week.

Now that we know the death-rates, we can again use Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula to work out the real-world vaccine effectiveness.

Real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against death in England between 3rd Jan and 30th Jan 22 was as low as -110.24% in the over 80’s, -97% in people aged 70-79, and -98.14% on average in all adults over age 18.
Here’s what that means in terms of the fully vaccinated populations immune system performance against death –

Keeping in line with historical trends that show the Covid-19 vaccines have caused damage to the immune system that worsens by the week we can see that the lowest immune system performance is among those who were vaccinated first, with the over 80’s recording an immune system performance of -52.4%, and then the 70-79 age group recording an immune system performance of -49.2%.

There is however a concerning anomaly in this data in that we should expect to see a positive immune system performance among the 30-39 age group of around 29%, but instead it is currently at -15.4%. There could be several explanations for this but none of them are good.

Either the 30-39 year-olds are genuinely doing worse, or all other age groups are doing much worse than what we are being told.

Either way we can be sure that the data is reliably telling us the Covid-19 injections are not just ineffective, but damage the innate immune system to the point where a not-vaccinated persons immune system is much better at protecting a person against death as well.

But what does this mean?

Well, there could be several possibilities for what’s happening here but again none of them are good.
One possibility could be that the Covid-19 injections cause Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease leading to conditions such as Antibody-Dependent Enhancement. This is a real possibility because even Pfizer warned about the theoretical risk of this occurring in confidential documents produced in April 2021.

Another possibility could be that the vaccinated population are developing some new form of Acquired Immunodeficiency syndrome induced by the Covid-19 injections.

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a condition that leads to the loss of immune cells and leaves individuals susceptible to other infections and the development of certain types of cancers. In other words, it completely decimates the immune system.

This doesn’t mean it’s the same condition that is supposedly induced by the HIV virus, but it’s a very similar condition that has instead been induced by the experimental jabs.

Further evidence to support the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome theory can also be found in the same UK Government data on page 52.

The UKHSA has found the vaccine interferes with the body’s innate ability after infection to produce antibodies against not just the spike protein but other pieces of the virus. Specifically, vaccinated people don’t seem to be producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, the shell of the virus, which are a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.
This means vaccinated people will be far more vulnerable to mutations in the spike protein even after infection and recovery.
It’s impossible to say exactly what’s happening because Governments around the world and the Big Pharma scientists are doing their best to sweep all of this under the carpet. But call it what you want, all we know is that UK Government data confirms the Covid-19 vaccines damage the innate immune system, and it is damage that worsens by the week.

How Billions in COVID Stimulus Funds Led Hospitals to Prioritize Treatments That Kill

 “COVID-19: Following the Money” — policy analyst A.J. DePriest reported on the impact of $billions in COVID stimulus funds, which turned hospitals and medical staff into “bounty hunters,” and COVID patients into hapless prey.

As reported last week by The Defender, federal monies from the 2020 and 2021 COVID stimulus bills dramatically reshaped K-12 educational priorities, turning American school officials into lackeys for federal agencies intent on masking and vaccinating every last child than on supporting meaningful education.

Huge stimulus covid incentive payments are reshaping priorities of hospitals. Hospitals are ‘for-profit’ corporations who gladly accept lavish government payments that fatten their profits hugely. Killing patients legally is a nice clean business model.

Managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government allocated a total of $186.5 billion to the Provider Relief Fund (PRF), with two-thirds ($121.3 billion) disbursed as of January 2022. The first tranche of $50 billion for hospitals and other Medicare providers — “for healthcare-related expenses or lost revenues … attributable to COVID-19” — began flying out the door in April 2020.

Almost immediately, alert doctors and astute journalists warned the Medicare add-on payments built into the relief package created perverse incentives unfriendly to patients’ interests. As summarized by Dr. Scott Jensen — former Minnesota state senator and current gubernatorial candidate — “anytime healthcare intersects with dollars it gets awkward.” Nearly two years down the road, the “awkwardness” is increasingly difficult to hide.

In the view of DePriest and many others, HHS’s stimulus slush fund has been every bit as dangerous for hospital patients as the U.S. Department of Education’s handouts have been for the nation’s schoolchildren.

Making out like bandits

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet and Ali Shultz, J.D., who wrote a widely distributed op-ed in late 2021 for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), summed up the disturbing situation prevailing in hospitals. The AAPS’s professional calling card is its “dedication to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates” which is only superseded by their greed.

Not mincing their words, the two argued that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) payment directives turned hospitals and medical staff into “bounty hunters,” and COVID patients into “virtual prisoners.”

Highlighting the slew of CMS add-ons and other incentives established with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act — and also the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act (PPPHCEA) — they emphasized the payments hinge on hospitals’ willingness to slavishly follow the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) guidelines “for all things related to COVID-19.”

As itemized by Vliet and Shultz, compliant hospitals garner CMS payments for:

  • Each completed diagnostic test (required in the emergency room or upon admission).
  • Each COVID-19 diagnosis.
  • Each COVID admission.
  • Use of the intravenously administered Gilead drug remdesivir (brand name Veklury), which yields a 20% bonus payment on the entire hospital bill.
  • Mechanical ventilation.
  • COVID-19 listed as cause of death.

Citing a Becker’s Hospital Review breakdown, published in April 2020, of CARES Act payments to different states, DePriest reported payments ranged from $166,000 per COVID patient in Tennessee hospitals, for example, to far higher payments in states such as North Dakota ($339,000), Nebraska ($379,000) and West Virginia ($471,000).

In addition, for hospitals ascertained to be in COVID “hotspots,” HHS distributed special “high-impact” funds — $77,000 per admission initially, later downsized to $50,000 per admission.

HHS explained it used COVID admissions “as a proxy for the extent to which each facility experienced lost revenue and increased expenses associated with directly treating a substantial number of COVID-19 inpatient admission.

The remdesivir ruse

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spent $79 million developing remdesivir for Gilead, which itself dished out $2.45 million during the first quarter of 2020, to lobby for the drug’s use with COVID patients.

On May 1, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized remdesivir for emergency use in individuals hospitalized with severe COVID illness, and members of an NIH expert panel (many with financial ties to Gilead) added the drug to the agency’s treatment guidelines.

A scant five months later, FDA granted full approval to remdesivir for hospitalized COVID patients over age 12.

The World Health Organization (WHO), in contrast, advised against remdesivir, stating the drug has “no meaningful effect on mortality or on other important outcomes for patients.”

Remdesivir sailed through regulatory hoops in the U.S. despite an abysmal track record of “adverse effects serious enough to kill” any individual hapless enough to take it.

Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. discusses remdesivir’s toxicity in his best-selling book, The Real Anthony Fauci, outlining the lethal problems — multiple organ failure, acute kidney failure, septic shock, hypotension and death — experienced by participants in NIAID’s clinical trial of remdesivir as an Ebola therapy.

When the trial, which compared remdesivir against three other drugs, killed more than half (54%) of the remdesivir recipients within 28 days — the highest mortality rate among the four groups — an oversight board forced the NIAID to end the prong of the study focused on remdesivir.

As if remdesivir alone weren’t bad enough, Vliet and Shultz estimate mechanical ventilation kills anywhere from 45% to 85% of COVID patients. Moreover, NIH’s skimpy treatment guidelines prescribe dexamethasone concurrently with ventilators.

Dexamethasone, often described as a “double-edged sword,” is a highly potent corticosteroid that suppresses the innate immune system.

Like remdesivir, dexamethasone’s potentially significant adverse impacts include kidney damage, interference with the normal function of other organ systems such as the cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, musculoskeletal and nervous systems.Ironically, dexamethasone can also increase the need for mechanical ventilation as well as for blood pressure intervention. Therapies like these are a large part of why, as Vliet and Shultz note, the U.S. COVID mortality rate is so “shockingly high” compared to the rest of the world.

Remdesivir’s trail of destruction could get worse — on Jan. 21, FDA expanded use of remdesivir to “high-risk” adult and pediatric outpatients (age 12 and older) “for the treatment of mid-to-moderate COVID-19 disease,” permitting administration of the intravenous drug in various outpatient facilities. FDA’s side effects warnings include possible liver injury and allergic reactions such as “changes in blood pressure and heart rate, low blood oxygen level, fever, shortness of breath, wheezing, swelling …, rash, nausea, sweating or shivering.”

Getting involved and bringing transparency

Referring to the 20% add-on payment that hospitals receive for administering remdesivir to COVID patients, DePriest commented that a “bonus” is a “weird thing to call something when you’re murdering people.”

Journalist Jon Rappoport agreed, preferring to characterize hospitals’ behavior toward COVID patients as “a federally incentivized protocol for murder” — or “cash for death”.

All of the above parties concur that the best-case scenario is to treat COVID early at home and avoid hospitals — “because we know from experience what happens there.”

COVID itself, if simply left to run its course, has a mortality rate of 0.03% and is no more debilitating than the common flu.  It is hospitals that have amplified the mortality rate to 60% and the more cash incentives paid to them, the higher the mortality rate goes.

In cases where hospitalization is unavoidable, DePriest encourages communities to get more involved:

“When you know these hospitals are doing that, the people of that community need to show up at that hospital en masse and start telling them that you, as a community, are going to be advocating for every single COVID patient that walks through those doors, and you are going to hold that hospital accountable — to their patient bill of rights, to their stated visitation policies — and if your state is not in a state of emergency anymore, there shouldn’t be any reason why patients are medically kidnapped and separated from their families and isolated.

“There’s only one reason for it…greed. Obviously, the government has no intention to stop this outright murder, so the communities must get involved and confront these murderers-for-hire. ‘We see what you are doing, you’re not killing any more of us”.

The Suppressed History of How Pandemics are Created

And the Fake Germs of Rockefeller Allopathic Medicine

When American journalist Celia Farber courageously published, in Harper’s Magazine (March 2006) the article “Out of control—AIDS and the corruption of medical science,” some readers probably attempted to reassure themselves that this “corruption” was an isolated case. This is the abject truth. It is only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption of research is a widespread phenomenon currently found in almost all major, ‘supposedly contagious or transmissive’ health issues.

Scientific research on viruses slipped onto the wrong track following basically the same systemic pathway that leads to superstition. This pathway always includes several key steps: inventing the risk of a disastrous epidemic, incriminating an elusive pathogen, ignoring alternative toxic causes, manipulating epidemiology with non-verifiable numbers to maximize the false perception of an imminent catastrophe, and promising salvation with vaccines. This guarantees large financial returns. But how is it possible to achieve all of this? Simply by relying on the most
powerful activator of the human decision making process, which is FEAR!

We are not witnessing viral epidemics; we are witnessing epidemics of fear. And both the media and the pharmaceutical industry carry most of the responsibility for amplifying fears. Fears that happen, incidentally, to always ignite fantastically profitable business for the drug industry. Research hypotheses covering these areas of ‘virus research’ are practically never scientifically verified with appropriate controls. Instead, they are established by “consensus” from TV hype. There is simply too much money at stake and too much corruption to ever prevent this occurrence.

This is then rapidly reshaped into a dogma, efficiently perpetuated in a quasi-religious manner by the media, including ensuring that research funding is restricted to projects supporting the dogma, excluding research into alternative hypotheses. An important tool to keep dissenting voices out of the debate is censorship at various levels ranging from the popular media to scientific publications.  There is always a charismatic figure who looks good on TV, is totally unscrupulous, and can be attributed with unassailable credentials and credibility.

We haven’t learned well from past experiences. There are still too many unanswered questions on the causes of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic, and on the role of viruses in post-WWII polio (DDT neurotoxicity?). These modern epidemics should have opened our minds to more critical analyses.  The 1918 incident conveniently played right into the Rockefeller plans for taking over the entire medical industry with their new ‘Allopathic’ system of pills, drugs, injections and unnecessary surgeries, based on the ‘germ theory’ of the criminal, Louis Pasteur.

Pasteur and Koch had solidly constructed a knowingly fake theory of infection based on bacteria, and fake ‘contagious germ’ diseases. According to the fabricated ‘Germ Theory’, countless numbers of germs are invisible and swarming everywhere. You can ‘catch’ a disease from a toilet seat or a door-knob. Every ‘germ’ is busily out to get you and you must hurry to the allopath to get some more pills to add to your collection. This keeps the cash register ringing for the pharmaceutical industry and the pill-pushers.

But this was before the first ideas for bringing viruses into the growing ‘germ’ family. Transposing the principles of bacterial infections to viruses was, of course, too tempting to pass up, as viruses can be portrayed as countless trillions of new ‘germs’ opening endless possibilities for new drugs.

They had the advantage of being virtually invisible, for all practical purposes, and a whole new segment of the medical industry could be based on these naturally-occurring inert molecules which are NOT capable of causing any harm or sickness. 

We had a very long prior history of getting along without these new fabricated germ threats until Rockefeller medicine came along, unscrupulously looking for more new ‘germs’ to augment the toxicity of allopathy’s own drugs, and to nutritional deficiencies resulting from not only restriction and misinformation, but the corruption of the entire food industry, itself, with the ‘meat, dairy, refined sugar’ public education curriculums that led ignorant people into totally modern real plandemics of cancers and cardiovascular diseases.  But greed does not yield itself readily, to non-existant threats of contagion based on more invisible virus germs was just too good to pass up.

Cancer research offered similar opportunities.

The hypothesis that cancer might be caused by viruses was formulated in 1903, more than one century ago. Even until today, with trillions of dollars thrown at cancer cure research, it has never been demonstrated. Most of the experimental laboratory studies by ‘virus-hunters’ have been based on the use of inbred mice, inbred implying a corrupted genetic background. Were these mice appropriate models for the study of human cancer?

Electron microscopy experiments allowed visibility of the virus, which prove nothing beyond the existence of ‘used and discarded mRNA molecules’ from building the new DNA, which is confined to the cellular nucleus. But are these mRNA molecules associated with any disease?  Viruses are the inert molecules that newly replicating eukaryotic cells use in the performing of mitosis. Then discarded by the newly formed replacement cell as a vesicle called an exosome.  They are scrapped, no longer needed, and no longer available.  Like a blue-print, used to build a new structure, identical to the old cell that has now died and been replaced. This is a routine occurrence that your body performs trillions of times each day.

What is certain is that mRNA particles, similar to those readily recognized in cancerous and leukemic mice, have never been seen nor isolated in human cancers. Just because something is ‘present’ in a cell, that is expected to be present, does not make the presence into some disease or health threat.  This is a normal process in humans.  It’s how the body works to deal with cellular aging.  It is happening trillions of times per day in humans and all eukaryotic animals, plants, spores, fungi, molds, etc.  All life on this planet, in this dimension, has a finite life-span based on how much telomere they, as a specie, are allotted.  Humans are allotted enough telomere material to live to the age of 150 years. This was a part of the agreement between Enki, the creator, and his brother Enlil (Yahweh) for permitting the creation of the Adamu creature, originally the worker in the gold mines who were created to replace the striking alien workers.

Making of the new medical scientismic ‘germ’ out of the perfectly normal inert waste molecules from the process of mitosis

However, by the time this became clear, in the late 1960s, viral oncology had achieved a
dogmatic, quasi-religious status. If viral particles cannot be seen by electron microscopy in human cancers, the problem must be with electron microscopy, not with the dogma of viral oncology! This was the time molecular biology was taking a totally dominant posture in viral research. This was the great new career path for fledgling researchers in the field of medicine, which was exuding money based on the Rockefeller business model for medicine.

Since everyone in the field was in the inventing mode, “Molecular markers” for retroviruses were therefore invented (reverse transcriptase for example) and substituted most conveniently for the absent viral particles, hopefully salvaging the central dogma of viral oncology. This permitted the viral hypothesis to survive for another ten years, until the late 1970s, with the help of increasingly generous support from both government and NGO funding agencies and from pharmaceutical companies.

However, by 1980 the failure of this line of research was becoming embarrassingly evident, and the closing of some viral oncology laboratories would have been inevitable, except that…

Except what? Virus cancer research would have crashed to a halt except that, in 1981, five cases of severe immune deficiencies were described by a Los Angeles physician, all among homosexual men who were also all sniffing amyl nitrite, were all abusing other drugs, abusing antibiotics, and probably suffering from malnutrition and STDs (sexually transmitted diseases common among those practicing anal intercourse).

It would have been logical to hypothesize that these severe cases of immune deficiency had multiple toxic origins. But, this would have amounted to incrimination of these patients’ life-style. Unfortunately, such discrimination was, politically, totally unacceptable. Therefore, another hypothesis had to be found—these patients were suffering from a voluntary and contagious disease caused by a new…HIV retrovirus!  Except, there is no HIV retrovirus.  The cause is simply from the life-styles chosen by the victims.  It is apparently more important for the victims to enjoy their sex/drug lifestyles than to be healthy.  This is verboten in the social climate of victimhood and it solves the big problem of funding knowingly pointless and result less research.

Scientific data in support of this hypothesis was and, amazingly enough, still is totally missing. That did not matter, and instantaneous and passionate interest of cancer virus researchers and institutions erupted immediately. This was salvation for the viral laboratories where AIDS now became, almost overnight, the main focus of research. It generated huge financial support from Big Pharma, more budget for the FDA, CDC and NIH, and nobody had to worry about the life style of the patients who became at once the innocent victims of this horrible heinous virus, soon labeled as HIV.

Twenty-five years later, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis has totally failed to achieve its three major goals in spite of the huge research funding exclusively directed to projects based on it. No AIDS cure has ever been found; no verifiable epidemiological predictions have ever been made; and no HIV vaccine has ever been successfully prepared.

Instead, highly toxic (but not curative) drugs have been most irresponsibly used, with frequent, lethal side effects. Yet not a single HIV particle has ever been observed by electron microscopy in the blood of patients supposedly having a high viral load! So what? All the most important newspapers and magazine have displayed attractive computerized, colorful images of HIV that all originate from laboratory cell cultures, but never from even a single AIDS patient. HIV is not a virus-based illness, not is COVID, or anything else.  Virology is a sacred science-religion that exists form incessant need for more and more money.  The only good jobs left in the US are those who get funded by companies who make vast fortunes off of medical scams.  Can you see a picture forming here?

Despite this stunning omission, the HIV/AIDS dogma is still solidly entrenched. Tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of major pharmaceutical companies continue to make huge profits based on the HIV hypothesis. And not one single AIDS patient has ever been cured…

Yes, HIV/AIDS is emblematic of the corruption of virus research that is remarkably and tragically documented in this book. Research programs on Hepatitis C, BSE, SARS, Avian flu and current vaxxination policies all developed along the same logic, that of maximizing financial profits and supporting the hollow economy providing the “good jobs”.  Have you ever heard the term “Ponzi Scheme”?

Whenever we try to understand how some highly questionable therapeutic policies have been recommended at the highest levels of public health authorities (WHO, CDC, RKI etc.), we frequently discover either embarrassing conflicts of interests, or the lack of essential control experiments, and always the strict rejection of any open debate with authoritative scientists presenting dissident views of the pathological processes. Manipulations of statistics, falsifications of clinical trials, dodging of drug toxicity tests have all been repeatedly documented. All have been swiftly covered up, and none have been able to, so far, disturb the cynical logic of today’s virus research business model.

“Virus Mania” is a social disease of our totally fake highly developed society. To cure it will require
conquering fear, fear being the most deadly contagious virus, most efficiently transmitted by the media.

Etienne de Harven, MD, Professor Emeritus of Pathology at the University of Toronto and Member of the Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, New York (1956 – 1981), Member of Thabo Mbeki’s IDS Advisory Panel of South Africa and President of Rethinking AIDS. He died in 2019 at the age of 82. This article was written as a foreword to the book Virus Mania – How the Medical Industry continually invents Epidemics, making billion-dollar profits at our expense.

Hospitalizations by COVID-19 vaxx status

This data provides facts relating to the number of vaxx’d versus unvaxx’d people in a typical hospital in Britain. This data should allow extrapolation on a broader scale to get an idea of the ratio of vaxx’d to unvaxx’d, showing that the unvaxx’d are not a small minority population relative to the overall population of the world. Many world leaders are liars who are trying to incite hatred or even harm to the unvaxx’d on the part of the vaxx’d. This is typical tyrannical dialoge to incite highly ignorant, thus easily radicalized individuals to elevate the inflammability factor for the sole reason of mass manipulation. The ignorant are easily manipulated by fiery dialogue, no matter if it is all based on lies.

Ignorant people do not like the idea of wasting their valuable time on facts. They enjoy being roused up by rhetoric, especially if they think they are in the majority and can inflict pain on those who disagree with them at no risk to themselves. The tyrants know this perfectly well and use it to manipulate situations to their desires, even when it is clearly disadvantageous to the manipulated.

Figure 1: Hospital Admissions by Vaxxcination Status, All Ages 18 Years and Over

Gloucestershire Hospital Admissions

1. Main points

  • For all ages, 18+ years, as COVID-19 admissions rose between 06-Sep-20 and 31-Jan-21, and between 06-Jun-21 and 31-Oct-21, total admissions fell, suggesting COVID-19 was not instrumental on NHS pressure.
  • The low point of the downward trend in admissions occurs in the week in which COVID-19 mass vaccinations begin.
  • The rise in weekly admissions is concomitant with the rise in vaccinations and only abates when adult vaccinations also abate.
  • The weekly variation in admissions for all ages, 18+ years, is more strongly correlated with patients vaccinated prior to admission than unvaccinated patients, both before and after the midpoint of vaccination rates.
  • It is strongly suggested that COVID-19 vaccinations drive the increase in hospital admissions throughout the period of observation, exceeding hospital bed capacity by 9k beds, roughly 272 beds per week, or 33% of total capacity.
  • The timing and magnitude of pressure caused by vaccinations varies by age group, health characteristics and vaccination timetable.
  • None of the age groups shows evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions during periods of COVID prevalence except at the end of the observation period which is just as likely to be the result of a cessation of vaccinations and/or survivorship bias, as it is protection against COVID.

2. Methods

Despite the fact that the government keeps telling us that coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations are intended to “save the NHS”, i.e. relieve demand on capacity, and “save lives”, it is challenging to prove this because of the abject lack of analysis and publicly available data on overall hospital admissions and underlying data on deaths by vaccination status, from the ONS and UKHSA.

To overcome this challenge, I have put in over 50 Freedom of Information requests to those organizations and a number of NHS Trusts.

Only one NHS Trust (Gloucestershire) was apparently willing and able to provide me with the information I requested, daily hospital admissions by age with date of first COVID-19 vaccination1.

From this data, I was able to construct weekly timeseries of hospital admissions between 06-Sep-20 and 12-Dec-21, grouped by age ranges and real vaccination status (simply vaccinated or unvaccinated at the time of admission).

I performed a relative trend analysis for each age group and a correlation between the weekly change in total admissions and vaccinated/unvaccinated admissions to estimate if vaccination had an effect on overall hospital admissions.

According to the ONS:

The vaccination roll-out was also prioritized by health status of individuals, with the extremely clinically vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions being vaccinated earlier than other people in their age group. In addition, frontline health and social care workers, who could have a higher occupational risk, were also prioritized for vaccination.

These factors might influence the analysis which is also potentially affected by changes over time such as in COVID-19 infection levels, different dominant variants, differing levels of immunity from prior infection and seasonality.

That said, in analyzing the data across periods where COVID-19 (variants) were prevalent and not, and taking into consideration the other potential confounders, I believe the conclusions drawn from the analysis are reliable and robust.

The analysis demonstrates the impact on hospital admissions during COVID-19 outbreaks, during periods when there is little or no COVID-19, when vaccination rates are low and climbing and when they are high and at a relatively steady state.

Estimating vaxxine effectiveness is challenging when vaxxination status is not allocated at random, as factors that vary between the vaxxination status groups and over time need to be accounted for to determine the causal impact of vaxxines on hospital admissions.

Nonetheless, this analysis gives a simple, fast measure of how hospital admission rates vary by vaxxination status, and can indicate whether vaxxines are likely to be successful in reducing pressure on the NHS.

The vaxxination status is binary – either the patient had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaxxine prior to admission or they had not.

3. Hospital admission rates by vaxxination status, all ages over 18 years

Table 1: Hospital Admissions by Vaxxination Status, All Ages 18+ Years

The hospital admissions involving coronavirus (COVID) and non-COVID by vaxxination status group for all admissions aged 18 years and over, between 20-Dec-20 and 12-Dec-21 (52 weeks) are shown in Table 1.

Of the 58k total admissions, roughly half were vaxxinated prior to admission and only 5% of admissions were “with” COVID.

Inevitably, given the very low rate of COVID admissions, it is not possible to analyze the effectiveness of the COVID vaxxine directly using this metric. However, if the vaxxine was responsible for the very small number of COVID admissions, this should also result in “normal” admission levels at worst (unless, of course, the vaxxine itself was responsible for causing non-COVID admissions).

There was no data available on normal admissions but bed occupancy has been consistently between 820 and 890 for this hospital and age group over the years, regardless of the time of year. The admissions are equivalent to around 1,100 each week on average, well in excess of normal occupancy which is also not far off maximum capacity.

Between 20-Dec-20 and 01-Aug-21 (33 weeks), the period when admissions were rising, the expected admissions (as a function of normal bed capacity and an arbitrary 1-week average stay) is 27k (Table 2). The actual number of admissions is 36k, an excess of around 272 per week on average, or 33% of capacity. This represents the number of excess discharges the hospital would have to make each week to maintain bed capacity.

Table 3: Average Weekly Change in Hospital Admissions, All Ages Over 18 Years

According to Table 3, the average weekly increase in total admissions is almost 9 per week, every week between 27-Dec-20 and 01-Aug-21 (33 weeks) before it plateaus (and eventually recedes again).

This net increase is a function of a 14 admissions decrease in the unvaccinated relative to a 23 admissions increase in the vaccinated.

There are two competing hypotheses to explain the total increase.

  1. The main hypothesis (mine) is that the vaxxine, which is known to cause severe adverse reactions that lead to hospitalization, causes more non-COVID hospitalizations than potential COVID hospitalizations mitigated.
  2. The alternative hypothesis is that the unvaccinated admissions do not decrease at the same rate as the vaccinated admissions increase due to the “unhealthy unvaccinated” effect, i.e. the seriously ill are too ill to be vaxxinated or refuse if they are significantly moribund.

Notwithstanding the prescience required by the patient to fit the second hypothesis, this is obviously a stark contradiction to the statement above quoted from the ONS, whereby the critically ill and those with other underlying health conditions are actually prioritized for vaccination.

Nevertheless, we can put these hypotheses to a further test by looking at the correlations between total admissions and admissions by vaccination status.

As we can see from Figure 2, the correlations between vaccinated admissions and total admissions are about twice as strong as the correlations between total admissions and unvaccinated admissions for all the over 18s. This demonstrates that vaccinated admissions have a stronger relationship with the weekly variation of all admissions than unvaccinated admissions.

Figure 3: Vaccinated Admission Rate Compared to Population Vaccination Rate, 18+ Year-Olds

Looking at Figure 3, we can see that up until the end of March the vaccinated admission rate exceeds the population vaccination rate. This is consistent with the ONS statement that the clinically vulnerable are prioritized for vaccination. It appears that this results in an increase in hospital admissions, probably due to the vaccine itself as expected. It is plausible that the sustained increase in hospitalizations beyond March is simply due to a longer delay between vaccination and adverse event requiring hospitalization in some of the vaccinated patients.

The trend analysis and correlation analysis together strongly suggest that vaccinated admissions are driving total admissions. Since admissions are rising for most of the period under study, it is apparent that COVID vaccinations are responsible for increased admissions, regardless of the incidence of COVID-19, the level of vaccination or the rate of vaccination.

4.Hospital admission rates by vaccination status, ages 18-39 years

Looking at Figure 4, we observe that vaccinated admissions did not start in earnest until 10-Jan-21 for patients aged between 18 and 39 years old. The mid point of vaccinations was on 06-Jun-21 which is a few weeks after admissions have ceased to rise.

Figure 5: Vaccinated Admission Rate Compared to Population Vaccination Rate, 18-39 Year-Olds

According to Figure 5, the vaccinated admission rate runs slightly below the population vaccination rate until the end of April with a couple of spikes. This might suggest that the clinically vulnerable in this age group were less likely to be hospitalized by the vaccine than all ages over 18 years.

However, overall we observe the same relative impact on total admissions that appears to be driven by the vaccinated patients (Table 4) with an average increase in admissions of 1.5 patients every week, resulting in an excess demand of 33% of normal bed capacity. Overall, only 33% of admissions were in the vaccinated.

Figure 6: Correlations Between Total Admissions and Admissions by Vaccination Status Before and After Mid Vaccination Rates, Ages 18-39 Years

The correlation plots (Figure 6) reveal that the vaccinated admissions are twice as closely related to total admissions than the unvaccinated in the first half of mass vaccination. This would be consistent with the expectation that the clinically vulnerable should be more susceptible to hospitalization due to adverse reaction to the vaccine.

After the midpoint, the unvaccinated, although not strongly correlated in absolute terms are three to four times more closely correlated than the vaccinated, suggesting that the healthy patients in this age group are no longer affected by the vaccine, as we would expect.

5.Hospital admission rates by vaccination status, ages 40-49 years

Figure 7: Hospital Admissions by Vaccination Status, Ages 40-49 Years

Looking at Figure 7, we observe that vaccinated admissions did not start in earnest until 03-Jan-21 for patients aged between 40 and 49 years old. The mid point of vaccinations was on 18-Apr-21.

In contrast to the 18-39 year-olds, we see a more significant rise admissions concomitant with the rise in vaccinated admissions.

Figure 8: Vaccinated Admission Rate Compared to Population Vaccination Rate, 40-49 Year-Olds

According to Figure 8, the vaccinated admission rate runs well above the population vaccination rate until the end of April. This is consistent with the concomitant rise in admissions and might suggest that the clinically vulnerable in this age group were unsurprisingly more likely to be hospitalized by the vaccine than the 18-39 year-olds.

After April, the admission rate trend is neutral, punctuated by some wild weekly variations which might signify that those being hospitalized may well have been hospitalized soon anyway.

Table 5: Summary Statistics of Hospital Admission Data for 40-49


Over the whole period between 03-Jan-21 and 01-Aug-21 (Table 5), there is a very modestly positive average weekly increase in overall admissions.

However, since the age group typically has relatively very few admissions, in percentage terms it actually represents a substantial increase over expectations with an excess demand of 63% of normal bed capacity. Overall, 59% of admissions were in the vaccinated which is higher than the average rate of vaccination in the population over the same period of just 53%.

Figure 9: Correlations Between Total Admissions and Admissions by Vaccination Status Before and After Mid Vaccination Rates, Ages 40-49 Years

The correlation plots (Figure 9) confirm the trend analysis and overall statistics. They reveal that the vaccinated admissions are substantially more highly correlated to total admissions than the unvaccinated in the first half of mass vaccination and almost twice has correlated afterwards as well.

It is clear that vaccinated admissions are driving the rise and variation in admissions for this age group in spite of the population not being predominantly vaccinated during the period.

6.Hospital admission rates by vaccination status, ages 50-69 years

Figure 10: Hospital Admissions by Vaccination Status, Ages 50-69 Years

Looking at Figure 10, we observe that vaccinated admissions start in earnest on 03-Jan-21 for patients aged between 50 and 69 years old. The mid point of vaccinations was on 07-Mar-21.

In contrast to the 40-49 year-olds, we see a more modest rise in admissions for a few weeks after vaccinations start, followed by a sharp drop even as vaccinations continue, followed again by a more sustained rise through to mid-May.

Figure 11: Vaccinated Admission Rate Compared to Population Vaccination Rate, 50-69 Year-Olds

According to Figure 11, the vaccinated admission rate runs exactly on the vaccinated population rate for the first five weeks. This is probably due to Healthcare workers being prioritized for this age group before the clinically vulnerable.

After Jan, the vaccinated admission rate runs consistently above the population rate until the end of March when over 70% of the population in this age group has been vaccinated.

Similarly to the 40-49 year-olds, this is consistent with the concomitant rise in admissions and might suggest that the clinically vulnerable in this age group were unsurprisingly more likely to be hospitalized by the vaccine in the first few weeks after vaccination, followed progressively less by the less and less vulnerable.

Over the whole period between 03-Jan-21 and 01-Aug-21 (Table 6), there is a substantially positive average weekly increase in overall admissions.

In percentage terms it represents an increase over expectations of 35% of normal bed capacity. Overall, 68.5% of admissions were in the vaccinated which is almost exactly the same as the background population rate.

Figure 12: Correlations Between Total Admissions and Admissions by Vaccination Status Before and After Mid Vaccination Rates, Ages 50-69 Years

The correlation plots (Figure 12) confirm the trend analysis and overall statistics. They reveal that there is little correlation between total admissions and either vaccinated admissions or unvaccinated admissions up to the midpoint of mass vaccination.

However, after the midpoint, unvaccinated admissions continue to show little correlation, whereas vaccinated admissions are strongly correlated with a relationship that is more than five times stronger.

It is clear that vaccinated admissions are driving the rise and variation in admissions for this age group after the healthcare workers have been vaccinated.

7.Hospital admission rates by vaccination status, ages 70 years and over

Figure 13: Hospital Admissions by Vaccination Status, Ages 70 Years and Over

Looking at Figure 13, we observe that vaccinated admissions start in earnest on 20-Dec-20 for patients aged 70 years and over. The mid point of vaccinations was on 24-Jan-21.

In contrast to the younger age groups, we do not see a rise in total admissions concomitant with a rise in vaccinated admissions for the first few weeks when the oldest and frailest are being vaccinated. The concomitant rise that we have observed in all the other age groups does not start until the midpoint of vaccinations on 24-Jan-21 when all of the oldest and frailest have been vaccinated.

Figure 14: Vaccinated Admission Rate Compared to Population Vaccination Rate, 50-69 Year-Olds

According to Figure 14, the vaccinated admission rate does not significantly deviate from the vaccinated population rate for the first five or six weeks before running substantially below it.

This might suggest that the vaccine had no impact on the oldest and frailest. In other words, those hospitalized were going to be so, vaccinated or not.

Thereafter, the plausible explanation given to me by one of my practicing clinician colleagues why the vaccinated admission rate tapers more rapidly than the background population rate is perhaps that those who might previously have been hospitalized unfortunately no longer made it that far. This might also explain why all admissions fall precipitously below expected levels in October, after boosters are given and fits with my previous analyses on deaths, e.g.

Over the whole period between 03-Jan-21 and 01-Aug-21 (Table 6), there is a substantially positive average weekly increase in overall admissions.

Table 7: Summary Statistics of Hospital Admission Data for 70+ Year-Olds

In percentage terms it represents an increase over expectations of 32% of normal bed capacity which might now suggest that my estimate of 7 days hospital duration was too high and it is actually closer to 5 days. Overall, 72% of admissions were in the vaccinated which is substantially less than the average population rate for the period of 82%.

Figure 15: Correlations Between Total Admissions and Admissions by Vaccination Status Before and After Mid Vaccination Rates, Ages 70+ Years

The correlation plots (Figure 15) confirm the trend analysis, that before the midpoint where it is mainly the 80+ year-olds being vaccinated, there is little difference in the vaccination status in terms of driving the variability in admission rates.

However, after the midpoint, unvaccinated admissions correlation falls substantially, whereas vaccinated admissions remain strong, up to four times higher.

Once again, it is apparent that vaccinated admissions are driving the rise and variation in admissions for this age group after the oldest and most frail have been vaccinated.

The analysis of the admission trends and correlations in weekly variability show that timing of vaccination roll out, age and health status affect hospital admission rates and timings just as vaccination status does.

However, it is also clear that taking these variables into consideration, plausible explanations can be given to explain the differences.

The ultimate conclusion is the same across all age groups as it was for the aggregate data – there is substantial evidence showing that COVID vaccinations are the main driver of changes in overall hospital admissions. Since inception, admissions are higher than expected for several months, strongly suggesting that the vaccines cause more hospitalizations than they mitigate.



The World Health Organization (WHO) defines coronaviruses as “a large family of viruses that are known to cause illness ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)”. Between 2001 and 2018, there were 12 deaths in England and Wales because of a coronavirus infection, with a further 13 deaths mentioning the virus as a contributory factor on the death certificate.

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

COVID-19 refers to the “coronavirus disease 2019” and is a disease that can affect the lungs and airways. It is allegedly caused by a type of coronavirus. Further information is available from the WHO.

9.Strengths and limitations

This analysis does not rely on biased or misleading vaccination classifications whereby vaccinated patients would be classified as unvaccinated within a certain number of weeks of being vaccinated or simply censored from the data. Nor does it only examine COVID endpoints rather than all endpoints and consider “fully vaccinated” as the only important outcome.

Unvaccinated also includes unknown vaccination status, i.e. where the patient record could not be matched to the National Immunization Status database and/or was not known to the hospital by some other means.

10. Acknowledgement

I would like to publicly acknowledge and thank the FOI Team and anyone else at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for the effort put into putting the data together and delivering it within the statutory limits.

What is a disease without a cause?

by Jon Rappoport

A disease without a cause is a business model.

You make a list of symptoms. You say many people are experiencing this cluster of symptoms.

You give a label to this list of symptoms. A name. The name of a disease or a disorder or a syndrome.

Over time, through promotion, the name sticks.

You fund research to find the cause of the disease. This research can stretch out for a long time. Possibly forever.

Meanwhile, you develop and sell drugs to treat the disease. Money.

You keep reporting “progress” on finding the cause. “At first, we looked for environmental factors. But now we know the basis is almost certainly genetic. We’re homing in on the specific genetic dysfunction…”

Over time, what’s forgotten is this: is there really a single disease with a single cause?

And think it through; if you can’t verify a single cause, you don’t have a disease. You just have the original list of symptoms.

Alzheimer’s would be an example. Microcephaly (babies born with small heads and brain damage) would be another. The disease names seem to carry the day. “Well, if there’s a name, a label, there must be a unique disease.”


If there’s a name, a label, there is money.

Money for research, for drug development, money from drug and vaccine sales.

Researchers are tasked with making the list of symptoms seem compelling. “We’ve done brain studies. There are remarkable similarities among patients who have Disease X. As you can see from these scans, in Figure A…”

Still, no dice. No verified cause. Therefore, no justification for using the disease label or claiming you have found a unique disease.

But it doesn’t matter, because the business model is working well.

Here’s another example. ADHD. Has a single cause been found for this list of symptoms? No. Therefore, there is no laboratory test for ADHD. No test to confirm the diagnosis of ADHD. Because a test would detect the cause is present in the patient—and there is no cause to look for.

In fact, if you examine the complete catalog of all so-called mental disorders—about 300 of them—there is no defining lab test for ANY of them. Not a one. Each so-called disorder is simply a list of behaviors which have been clustered together by committees of psychiatrists and given a name. ADHD. Bipolar. Clinical depression. And so on.

But it doesn’t matter. Because the business model is working. Money is pouring in. Drugs are selling.

Let’s take this even further. A hundred years of Rockefeller medicine have “established” that there are thousands of separate and distinct and unique diseases, disorders, and syndromes, all stemming from ‘germs’. And each one has a cause. For many diseases, the cause “hasn’t been discovered yet.” Meaning: “We’re writing fiction. We have no justification for calling these symptoms diseases.”

For many other diseases, researchers claim, the causes have been found. The most popular type of cause? A virus.

A virus that had never been seen before. A virus that was “discovered” in a lab.

A lab—as I’ve discussed in depth—that lets in no outsiders, no truly independent observers, to see, in detail, what’s actually going on.

For that reason, and several others, there is no solid reason to believe these viruses, these causes are actually being discovered. Are actually real.

Which leaves us with thousands of lists of symptoms.

But there is always a business model. The full Rockefeller model is worth trillions of dollars. More dollars every day.

The drugs and the vaccines are the $$$ payoff.

I’ve spent decades demonstrating their toxicity.

Here’s a very interesting medical trick. A criminal trick. The researchers say a brain disorder called ABC exists but they haven’t found the cause yet. A parent has a child with severe problems and takes him to the doctor. The doctor pronounces a diagnosis: “Yes, your boy has ABC.”

The parent goes away and does some research. The list of symptoms for ABC could be the result of a vaxxine. In fact, the boy developed his severe problems quite soon after vaxxination.

She goes back to the doctor and says, “I think my son was damaged by the vaxxine.”

The doctor says, “That’s impossible. Your boy is suffering from ABC. And you see, we’ve done studies of boys with ABC, and many of them were never vaxxinated. So, when you say the cause of your boy’s ABC was a vaxxine, we’ve ruled that out.”

The parent doesn’t know what to do.

Of course, the trick is, ABC was never proved to be a unique disorder in the first place. It’s really the NAME of an unproven disorder. The studies the doctor is referring to are completely irrelevant.

ABC is a disorder without a proven cause. Therefore, it is no disorder at all. It’s just a list of symptoms.

The parent’s boy has many of those symptoms. He acquired them—and the damage he suffered—from a vaxxine. If you wanted to put a name to what the boy has, call it what it is: vaxxine damage.

Not ABC.

Part of the business model for ABC is: “We use that disease label so we can avoid having to pay out huge compensation-dollars for damage caused by a vaxxine.”

If the impact of this trick isn’t getting through to you, let me give you a grossly exaggerated analogy.

Engineers claim there is a phenomenon called River Floundering. It is unique but the cause hasn’t yet been found. The basic symptom is: boats on rivers develop the propensity to sink.

Joe takes his boat out on a river. Overhead, a bridge collapses and destroys his boat. Joe barely escapes with his life. After six months, he emerges from the hospital and sues a number of parties.

But he loses his case. In court, experts testify that his boat was suffering from River Floundering. That’s why it sank. Many studies of Floundering show bridges-collapsing did not occur when “the sinking happened.” Therefore, the collapsing bridge was not the cause of Joe’s boat’s disorder, River Floundering.

What is a disease without a cause?

A business model, a process to fulfil an end goal or agenda. In the case of ‘covid’, the agenda is death for 90% of the Earth’s human population. You are going to express disbelief because you can’t conceive of the reason underlying the agenda. I have discussed the reason in numerous past essays, all of which are available to you in the archives of this web site.