|
 |
As an increasing number of questions accumulate about what is going on in health, healthcare and their evidence base, so do the comments we receive from a growing number of subscribers.
We follow most, but realistically can only investigate and comment on a few. Others, such as Maurice’s idea of a virus as a product of degradation, or scores, are baffling. We simply need to think through the concept and clarify its meaning and potential mechanics.
Other problems are more straightforward, but still require investigation.
Take the issue of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) from Viral respiratory agents. During the recent pandemic, HAIs probably accounted for the majority of hospital deaths “with or due to COVID-19”. Important? Yes, but we are not aware of any systematic work examining what happened and the role of respiratory viruses.
HAIs are not surprising, as hospital admissions involve a selected population. Selected for their fragile status and or proneness to infections of all kinds.
But what are the Ministerial programmes to deal with respiratory viral HAIs or even prevent them?
We receive automated electronic bulletins from the public health bodies, but still have not found traces of a coordinated programme to deal with respiratory viral HAIs, nor a tally of them despite the “Superflu” nonsense. That is strange, as large numbers of HAIs would contribute to terrifying people and presenting the “Superflu” case as pressing and credible.
Folks, we do not even have clear definitions of HAIs. As we shall see, that is no mere detail.
Before Christmas, a clutch of FOI requests was sent to learn more about the three bodies: UKHSA, DHSC, and NHSE. We fired them off to all three at the same time to avoid the “pass the parcel” game we have been frequently subjected to.
Then, one of our readers alerted us to the BBC spreading misinformation to local outlets as a demo of poor journalism and irresponsible reporting, like the biased coverage of Covid and “Superflu” stories showed
 |
|
 |
|
We need to monitor this regional spread of biassed reporting with the help of our readers. In fact, we encourage all our readers to report distorted health information all over the globe.
Then there is the MODERNA/Scare Agency “partnership” with its recurring theme of secrecy, subterfuge and patronising of taxpayers. We will follow our FOI and also raise a hand for Alan Black, who seems to smell the same stench as our old nostrils do, while wrestling with the usual censorship. Mr Black who seems to be made of stern stuff, wrote in one of his appeals:
“This strategic partnership between Moderna and the UK government is of great public interest and importance. So far no details about the financial contribution of the British taxpayer to this endeavour have been placed in the public domain and many people think that the time for this to happen is now long overdue”.
Next, we have the vaccination of pregnant women with untested mmRNA vaccines, which did not raise any concerns among women’s associations.Weird.
By this stage, our readers might be punch-drunk and reaching for their mobility scooters and Brussels sprout bowls.
 |
|
The above is a provisional programme of work for one of us, who will then consult with the other old geezer, who will add and comment. The other geezer wants to look at something much wider, so you’ll probably hear from him too.
The Lord only knows what other jokers will drop in the pack in 2026.
This was written by an old geezer who likes to play cards but does not appreciate too many jokers.
You're currently a free subscriber to Trust the Evidence. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
| ||||||||||
