NHS Source Claims New Data Will Be “More Realistic” In The Future, By Removing “Incidental” Covid From The Records.
But now an NHS source has actually said, going forward, the Covid data will be “more realistic” as it will discount all the patients where Covid was only “an incidental finding”. This is a bigger story than the media coverage suggests – only the Indy and Telegraph are covering it right now, and neither with the focus it deserves. NHS England is, essentially, tucking away a covert admission that a lot of their fear-mongering statistics were never “realistic”. Why would they do this? And why now? Well, here’s what they claim [emphasis added]: [The NHS said] the move was being done to help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme and whether it was successfully reducing Covid-19 sickness. But it doesn’t really make any sense, when you think about it. It will “help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme”? How so? How does changing the definition at this point possibly help “analyse” anything? Doesn’t it confuse the issue? Won’t it, in fact, effectively reduce the numbers of official “covid cases”? Doesn’t making the numbers “look better”, at this stage, make the “vaccine” appear more effective?
[dntplgn recurring_amt1=”4.50″ recurring_amt2=”3.00″ recurring_amt3=”1.50″ item_name=”Donation for EarthNewspaper.com” paypal_email=”email@example.com” currency_code=”USD” currency_symbol=”$” return_url=” https://earthnewspaper.com/index.php/thank-you-for-donating-to-earthnewspaper-com”]