If ‘early spread’ happened, why no early deaths?

Recent Substack articles have provided plausible answers to this valid question. The answer points to another massive, unexposed scandal.

Why didn’t more nursing home residents die earlier? Probably because people know not to visit their vulnerable loved ones when they are sick.

Since April 2020, I’ve been convinced the novel coronavirus must have been spreading around the world in 2019. That is, for more than 30 months, I’ve thought the “official” timeline regarding the virus’s origin and subsequent spread was non-sensical.

(This timeline dates the birth of Covid to late December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Officials with the CDC said this virus didn’t begin to spread in America until around January 20, 2020, another assertion belied by reams of available counter-factual evidence.)

The most significant rebuttal or critique of my hypothesis has always been this: If the virus was, in fact, spreading much earlier, we would have seen many more deaths much earlier.

In recent months I’ve become confident I have the explanation that largely answers this question.

I now believe most of the deaths that suddenly spiked dramatically in April 2020 were caused not by Covid proper but by faulty medical treatments. These were iatrogenic deaths - deaths caused by the healthcare RESPONSE to the virus, not the virus itself.

Expressed differently, the virus didn’t change. It had been spreading since at least September 2019 (if not earlier). What changed was the panic that ensued when lockdowns were implemented around the world in mid-March 2020, as well as the manner that presumed Covid patients were treated in hospitals and then nursing homes.

Substack writer Michael Senger recently published a vitally-important article in which he provides evidence and arguments that “mechanical ventilators and other iatrogenesis” likely caused more than “30,000 deaths” in New York and other nearby states in April 2020 alone.

Writes Senger: “The popular belief that a particularly deadly strain or variant emanated out of New York in March 2020 is belied by the absence of excess deaths in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.

“… Rather, the outsized number of excess deaths in the area around New York is better explained by the particular hysteria in that region for mechanical ventilators which decreased the survival rate for patients over age 65 by 26-fold."

Another Substack author, Jonathan Engler, reached similar conclusions after performing an in-depth analysis of mortality data in the Lombardy region of Italy (the site of the first highly-publicized outbreak outside Wuhan). Mr. Engler describes six circumstances that could explain the spike in deaths in certain locations.

1. Tell people not to attend healthcare if they had a cough, fever or other symptoms both to “protect” healthcare and also because any contact with healthcare would quite likely make you contract a deadly disease.

2. Tell healthcare staff to isolate if they (or in some cases someone in their household) received a positive test for a certain illness, even if asymptomatic.

3. Empty beds in preparation for being “overwhelmed”.

4. Terrorize and isolate elderly people especially those living in care homes, denying them visits from relatives and reducing or eliminating in-person visits from health and social carers. 

5. Use the entire machinery of state plus all social media and legacy mainstream media channels to promote an exaggerated narrative of fear aimed at the public and spilling over into healthcare workers, when it is well established that stress has a number of adverse health effects, including immuno-suppression.

6. Massive overuse of a treatment (ventilation) with no solid evidential basis, now known to be extremely harmful.

“It must therefore surely be reasonable to assume that at least some of the deaths which occurred in the aftermath of the cataclysmic changes to the delivery of healthcare — especially of the frail and elderly — might have been caused by policy, rather than virus. “

A third writer, the author of the Eugyppius website, also endorses the “iatrogenic” explanation for the dramatic spike in deaths that began in late March (immediately after the lockdowns and panic ensued).

“I also cling to my theory that, before Omicron, SARS-2 was an attendant-borne pathogen, which thrived particularly in healthcare environments. Emergency measures, including mass testing, had the effect of hovering up as many SARS-2 patients as possible and putting them in environment where attendants could mediate transmission - precisely where SARS does most of its killing.”

A ‘perfect storm’ leading to massive spikes in deaths ….

The following factors likely explain why there was no conspicuous spike in “all cause” mortality prior to mid-March 2020. Like myself, all three of the above-cited authors believe this virus was spreading widely around the world, probably as early as September 2019.

Here’s what I think happened: The panic from the heavily-publicized Wuhan and Italy outbreaks led to the lockdowns, which produced more fear in the public, as well as in some healthcare providers. Many people, believing they had Covid,  inundated certain hospitals. Some of these people probably did have Covid, but some probably didn’t.

Additionally, some sick people who should have gone to the hospital were no doubt afraid to go to the hospital due to official “guidance” and thus arrived when they were in a more critical condition.

An unknown percentage of these people probably contracted PCR-confirmed cases while at the hospital. As Mr. Senger points out, a vast number of these patients were unnecessarily placed on ventilators, which dramatically increased the odds someone would die (97.2 percent of patients 65-and-over who were placed on a ventilator did die, according to Senger’s research).

Furthermore, most of these patients were poor and were being treated in urban hospitals. It’s probably not politically incorrect to state that the underprivileged do not receive the level of care as the wealthy or middle class. In general, these patients were also elderly with many co-morbid conditions, including morbid obesity. Importantly, since quarantines were implemented, these patients did not have the benefit of family members who could monitor their care or serve as their advocates.

Many were already suffering from the effects of dementia and thus could not cogently articulate their symptoms. Many were also heavily sedated, further limiting their ability to communicate important information to healthcare providers. Importantly, at least in several states like New York, many nursing home residents were sent to hospitals (where they could have contracted the virus) and then back to nursing homes (where they then spread the virus).

A poster writing in the Reader Comment section which followed a Daily Sceptic article on this topic makes a point that’s perhaps germane to this subject.

Wrote “Burlington Berry:”  “I’ve seen a Covid treatment protocol document from the NHS dated early March 2020 for patients suffering respiratory distress. It comprises two drugs: midazolam & morphine. The dosage is TWICE the usual dose. If you check side effects of those drugs, particularly in the elderly (which in pharmacy speak means anyone over the age of 55 years) suppression of respiratory function is a common side effect. The question is, why further suppress the respiratory function of an individual with respiratory distress?”

I’ve read other articles that report certain drugs administered to these patients create dehydration, which can also worsen one’s health prognosis.

Another factor that may have played a role in the spike in deaths in April 2020 was identified by another poster, “Antrup.” This poster opines that the “Nocebo Effect” could have directly or indirectly contributed to deaths.

I’d never heard of this term, which is described as the opposite of the “Placebo Effect.” Basically, some people - no doubt terrified by media accounts - apparently can convince themselves they are in medical peril when they really aren’t. The increase in stress and agitation can contribute to medical conditions that do become serious. I can also envision scenarios after the lockdowns where the behavior of anxious hospital patients, perhaps responding to the Nocebo Effect, might influence the decisions of doctors or nurses, making it more likely they would authorize more extreme medical protocols.

Others have pointed out that at least some healthcare providers might have been afraid of contacting this virus from their patients, perhaps influencing the level of attention these patients received (or did not receive). And it is true some hospitals were over-run, meaning nurses and doctors were treating far more patients than was optimal. Many nurses who might have had little if any previous experience treating ventilated patients were now doing just this.

It’s very likely this “perfect storm” of events DID result in many more deaths than otherwise would have occurred if these previously non-existent factors had not become the new normal (the authorized “guidance”). This means the assumption that deaths in, say, January, would have been the same as the large numbers in April, may be a false assumption.  All conditions (and thus comparisons) were neither equal nor constant.

The geographical-dispersion of the outbreaks is odd  …

Engler and others also reference geographical observations to bolster their arguments. To them, it’s strange the virus didn’t produce major spikes in deaths throughout the world. Why did this extreme spike in deaths happen far more conspicuously in locations like Lombardy, Italy, New York City, Detroit and New Orleans, but not in many other places?

Also, why did these spikes of deaths happen almost all at once? Wouldn’t we expect to see different “fatal” outbreaks occurring at different times, especially if the virus had been spreading since the fall of 2019?

One theory opines that the original virus suddenly mutated into a more lethal form, at least in some locations. However, I find this theory unconvincing based on my research that presents hundreds of examples of people who report they were very sick from what they believe was Covid many months before the lockdowns. In my opinion, large if unknown numbers of people were getting very sick from something that wasn’t the flu. However, (relatively speaking) few people were dying from this virus, suggesting the real IFR of this virus is about the same as influenza. Those deaths that must have occurred were small enough to not show up in the all-cause mortality data.

(I have found mortality data from late December 2019 through mid-March from a number of states that seem to show a noticeable increase in all-cause deaths where you would expect to see them - in the age demo 75 and over. For example, from one data source I found, Michigan experienced a noticeable increase in deaths in the first 13 weeks of 2020 compared to the previous five-year norms, at least in the 75 to 84 age group. A future story will present this data.)

It also strikes me as odd that these dramatic spikes of deaths happened in April, when the weather is beginning to turn warmer. With all flu viruses, including the coronavirus, spikes in cases and deaths always happen in the middle of winter - in, say, January. So for some reason, this particular respiratory virus - a cousin of the cold and flu bug - waited until April to wreak havoc. This is possible, I guess, but this would qualify as a virus anomaly.

Why no early deaths in nursing homes?

I’ve also long wondered why we didn’t see a rash of conspicuous deaths in nursing homes. After all, numerous reports tell us that approximately 50 percent of all Covid deaths from the early months of the official pandemic happened among nursing home residents. If this virus was spreading as early as the fall of 2019, wouldn’t we have seen many more deaths in nursing homes?

Yet another poster at the Daily Skeptic made a post that perhaps answered a question that’s been nagging me for years.

Wrote John Dempster: "I got the mystery illness (now believed to be Covid) in late December 2019. My mother was in a care home.The care home policy was that relatives should not visit when they were ill. I understand that most care homes operate this policy in the UK. I waited until I was symptom free for a few days before I went to visit. Perhaps this type of care home policy delayed many elderly and vulnerable people getting Covid-19."

Eureka! Of course everyone knows we should not visit our loved ones in a nursing home when we’re sick. Also, nursing home workers are probably reminded once a week that they should not come to work when they are sick. For these already vulnerable residents, sick people visiting them can be a life-ending event.

This simple, common-sense reminder informs my new thought: The virus didn't spread in nursing homes to the extent we might have thought because people who were sick didn't go to nursing homes when they were sick and most likely to spread this virus.

Also, nursing home residents don't interact with many other nursing home residents. They are often confined to their beds and don't participate in group activities. They certainly wouldn't have many close contacts with fellow residents when they were sick.

This said, there's no doubt some nursing home residents were dying of this disease pre-March 2020. These deaths were just "missed" or attributed to other viruses/co-morbidities, etc.

In my solicitation of "early spread" testimonials, a man in Kirkland, Washington provided an intriguing personal story. Kirkland is where the first big nursing home outbreak occurred (resulting in many deaths). This man wrote that many people were sick in this town weeks before this heavily-publicized outbreak, including several members of his family. He opines this virus did, belatedly, get into that nursing home.

In America, millions of people live in thousands of nursing homes. However, in the vast majority of communities and nursing homes, the virus did not cause publicized outbreaks - probably because of the common-sense point made by John Dempster.

Conclusion and why this matters …

It’s taken far too long, but I believe many more people are belatedly starting to question the dubious narrative regarding the start date of this virus’s spread. While I’ve been arguably obsessed with this question, it occurs to me most people haven’t even thought about what it would mean if it could be proven this virus was spreading in the fall of 2019 (or even earlier).

Surely most of us have watched at least a few “Dateline” episodes. If we’ve done this, we know that detectives almost always start their investigations with a timeline of known or provable events. When it comes to the “birth date of Covid,” it now seems clear to many of us that this timeline was not only off, it was way off. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem investigators have been interested at all in creating a real and plausible timeline. In fact, it seems the emphasis might have been to create a false timeline. This begs the question: Why would this be their motivation?

Suffice it to say,  if it was “proven” that this virus was spreading by September 2019 (if not earlier), any lockdowns in March 2020 to “slow or stop” the “spread” of this virus were preposterous. The virus “horse” had been out of the barn for at least six months.

There’s also no telling how many people had already developed natural immunity, at least to the original version of this virus. The necessity of getting virtually everyone on the planet vaccinated might not have seemed quite as compelling. Pfizer, Moderna and the other vaccine companies might not have made billions in dollars from pre-sold vaccines bought by governments all over the world.

For me, the most important question involves the trust and credibility the world’s citizens place in their “trusted public health officials” and government leaders. If these trusted officials were (and still are) lying about the real start date of the spread of this virus, what else might they have lied to us about? Or if they can’t figure out that this virus was spreading around the world, why do we consider these people “experts?”

Lastly, the unnecessary deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people world-wide should constitute a “crime against humanity.” So Mr. Senger and other writers have identified a scandal of epic and shocking proportions … one that so far has been off-limits to investigation.

***

UPDATE (Oct. 18, 2022): Another important part of the answer to this question would be that Covid is really not that lethal to the vast majority of people who contract the virus. This is what Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis has been saying all along … and is still saying. Here’s the lede paragraphs from a recent article published at The Daily Sceptic:

“COVID-19 is much less deadly in the non-elderly population than previously thought, a major new study of antibody prevalence surveys has concluded.

“… In the new study, which is currently undergoing peer-review, Prof. Ioannidis and colleagues found that across 31 national seroprevalence studies in the pre-vaccination era, the average (median) infection fatality rate of COVID-19 was estimated to be just 0.035% for people aged 0-59 years and 0.095% for those aged 0-69 years. A further breakdown by age group found that the average IFR was 0.0003% at 0-19 years, 0.003% at 20-29 years, 0.011% at 30-39 years, 0.035% at 40-49 years, 0.129% at 50-59 years, and 0.501% at 60-69 years …”

I also think the same conclusions were confirmed by an antibody study done of crew members who served on the USS Teddy Roosevelt aircraft carrier when that ship had a heavily-publicized outbreak in March-April 2020.

The study found that approximately 60 percent of ship’s approximately 4,850 crew members tested positive for Covid antibodies in late April 2020. (For some unexplained reason, the CDC only tested 385 of the 4,850 crew members for antibodies).

Still, from this study we can extrapolate that approximately 2,910 crew members had been infected between late January 2020 and late April. Of this number, only one crew member died from Covid … and this crew member was much older (44) than most of the young Navy crew.

So the IFR/CFR on the Roosevelt was approximately 1-in-2900 (which is 0.0343 percent).

The IFR for crew members under the age of 44 would have been 0.00000 percent.

A Navy ship where everyone is living in tight quarters for weeks on end would have to be the worst-possible environment for virus spread … and still nobody under the age of 40 died from this “deadly” virus.

This provocative finding prompts this question: If Covid wasn’t and isn’t killing most of these official Covid fatalities, what was/is?

Note: See future articles about other provocative findings from the Roosevelt antibody study in future dispatches at this Newsletter.