by Iain Davis
In the UK, the MCCD process for COVID 19 abolished the need for any examination at all. The scrutiny of a second medical opinion (Medical Examiner) was also removed. Any qualified doctor could sign the MCCD alone.
Accordingly, NHS guidance to MCCD signing health authorities advised:
"During periods of excess deaths due to COVID-19, healthcare providers are encouraged to redeploy medical practitioners whose role does not usually include direct patient care, such as some medical examiners, to provide indirect support by working as dedicated certifiers, completing MCCDs."
These dedicated certifiers, though medically qualified, were tasked with signing off COVID 19 MCCDs. GP's and hospital physicians, would gather reports, perhaps from a review of the deceased medical notes or a video conference with a care home provider, and pass that information to the dedicated COVID 19 certifier for MCCD completion.
There was no requirement for them to have actually met the decedent. Providing they had information from any other medical practitioner who had seen the decedent within 28 days of their date of death.
The reporting physician didn't need to have physically examined the deceased either. A brief video conference at any time in 4 weeks preceding their passing was deemed sufficient. However if this was impractical, for example for vulnerable older people in quarantined care homes, even this video chat was unnecessary for the MCCD to be signed off as a COVID 19 death.
As long as the signing physician believed it was likely that the decedent died from COVID 19, they could still sign the MCCD to indicate a COVID 19 death. This could be done based upon nothing more than a review of the patient’s case notes or information received from a care home.
Doctors are generally intelligent people but they are no less susceptible to propaganda than the rest of us. Convinced they were facing an unprecedented health crisis, any respiratory symptoms were highly likely to be considered indicative of COVID 19. Especially if, as in the case of the majority of GP's, the doctor was often reliant upon reports from others.
This unbelievably obscure COVID 19 MCCD process steered the recording of COVID 19 deaths in both hospital and community care settings. Additional changes, for primary (community) health and social care, made the situation worse.
From late April 2020 the notification that the deceased probably had COVID 19 were gathered from care home managers, who were predominantly medically unqualified, by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). It was based upon the care home's discussion, via video call, with a GP. Again, no actual medical examination of the decedent by any doctor was necessary.
Prior to this, but only for COVID 19, the NHS Key Principles of General Practice [20], issued to General Practitioners had already stated:
“Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.”
This culmination of these policies, the direct consequence of the Coronavirus Act and WHO guidance, led the Office of National Statistics (ONS) to add this statement to their mortality reports:
“There is no validation built into the quality of data on collection. Fields may be left blank or may contain information that is contradictory, and this may not be resolved at the point of publication."
The ONS reported the requirements for a CQC notification of a COVID 19 death [21] from care settings:
"The inclusion of a death in the published figures as being the result of COVID-19 is based on the statement of the care home provider, which may or may not correspond to a medical diagnosis or test result, or be reflected in the death certification."
Although difficult to comprehend, the preceding statement is unedited. In UK care settings, a COVID 19 death could be recorded, often based upon the non-medical opinion of a care manager, without any medical evidence that the patient had either COVID 19 or a SARS-CoV-2 infection. This could be entered into the running reports of COVID mortality statistics, even without it being notified on the death certificate.
With a declared global pandemic supposedly underway, the NHS were placed on a war footing by the pseudopandemic informed influencers. Comments, like those from UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson [22] that the nation was "engaged in war," were commonplace. Always endeavouring to ramp up fear and never urging calm reflection.
There was no proof required for the attribution of a COVID 19 death. The NHS guidance stated:
"Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle ‘2’ in the MCCD (information from post-mortem may be available later)"
This suggestion that a post mortem may be available was impractical. Additional guidance issued by the Royal College of Pathologists stated [23]:
“If a death is believed to be due to confirmed COVID-19 infection, there is unlikely to be any need for a post-mortem examination to be conducted and the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death should be issued.”
Seeing as the WHO had instructed suspected U07.2 deaths to be coded as confirmed U07.1 deaths, the chance of anything other than confirmed COVID 19 infection reaching a pathologist was extremely remote. Any MCCD signed "without diagnostic proof" would be agreed by the pathologist without further scrutiny. The mere act of putting COVID 19 anywhere on the MCCD was enough to negate the need for a post mortem.
This new death certification system, specifically designed for COVID 19, clearly caused confusion. The British Medical Association's (BMA) verification of death guidance [24] advised that if no signing doctor had seen the decedent, prior to completing the MCCD, it should be referred to the coroner. However, this was only a policy recommendation not a legal requirement. It was also a pointless exercise.
Contradicting the BMA's advice, the Chief Coroner’s Office advised:
“COVID-19 is a naturally occurring disease and therefore is capable of being a natural cause of death……The aim of the system should be that every death from COVID-19 which does not in law require referral to the coroner should be dealt with via the MCCD process.”
This meant, even if a coroner received a referral from a doctor, they would be highly likely to automatically approve the MCCD without further examination. Given that a post mortem had already effectively been ruled out, there would be little point in the coroner investigating further anyway.
Coroners who may have been uncomfortable with this unreal situation, were advised to think of their careers. On the 26th March, contained in the released guidance from the Chief Coroner [25], was some not so friendly advice to coroners who may receive a COVID 19 referral. Normal coronal procedures were abandoned (but only for COVID 19) and coroners were "reminded" of their obligation to maintain judicial conduct:
“Coroners are reminded of their obligations under the Guide to Judicial Conduct. The Chief Coroner cannot envisage a situation in the current pandemic where a coroner should be engaging in interviews with the media or making any public statements to the press. All coroners should be focussing on their vitally important judicial role.”
That role was evidently to sign off on any COVID 19 MCCDs and never ask questions. Though we might wonder why it was necessary to make this thinly veiled threat.
Similarly it seemed doctors, nurses and others working in the NHS, who questioned this system, were under no illusions either. The use of draconian Hospital Trust gagging orders [26] (non disclosure agreements) were widely reported by the MSM.
However, these news reports related solely to whistleblower stories about NHS insiders reporting equipment shortages or inadequate staffing levels. Only narratives that reinforced the concept of the pseudopandemic crisis were fed to the public.
The Coronavirus Act had effectively created a medical certification process for COVID 19 where no proof was required. There was no need for a corroborating second medical opinion, no post mortem and effectively no oversight from coroners. It also ended the potential safeguard of a qualified informant. But only for COVID 19.
Prior to the Coronavirus Act, once the cause of death was entered on the MCCD, b
efore being sent to the registrar, the signing medical practitioner was required to seek, where possible, the agreement of a qualified informant. Typically this would have been a family member or acquaintance of the decedent who could consent to the recorded cause of death.
The Coronavirus Act stressed that the qualified informant need not be anyone acquainted with the deceased. A hospital official, someone who was ‘in charge of a body’ or a funeral director could suddenly perform this vital function. The Chief Coroner recommended:
“For registration: where next of kin/informant are following self-isolation procedures, the arrangement for relatives (etc) should be for an alternative informant who has not been in contact with the patient to collect the MCCD and deliver to the registrar for registration purposes. The provisions in the Coronavirus Act will enable this to be done electronically as directed by the Registrar General.”
If family members had just lost a loved one to suspected COVID 19, the chances of them being in lockdown self-isolation themselves were high. If not, their option was to visit the location where seemingly infected patients or residents, included a member of their own family or a friend, were allegedly dying from COVID 19. It isn't known how many qualified informants, who knew the deceased, were either able or willing to do this.
To finalise this unbelievable COVID 19 death system, the UK State franchise also withdrew the standard second opinion required prior to cremation. The need to complete Cremation form 5 [27] was suspended for all COVID 19 deaths.
This meant possible COVID 19 decedents could be cremated without any clear evidence that they ever had the disease, regardless of their family's wishes. Swiftly ending any chance of an investigation by dubious family members. Of which there were many.
The profusion of suspicious practices within this system can't be blamed upon the medical profession. Doctors have always had the responsibility of completing MCCDs “to the best of their knowledge and belief” even when test results may not be available. They can only make this determination based upon the evidence at their disposal within the policy guidelines and regulations they have to obey.
The difference with the COVID 19 system was that all the normal requirements for qualified confirmatory opinions, and every opportunity to question the cause of death, were removed. Given the extent to which evidence was either vague (in the case of both test results or diagnosis from symptoms alone) or absent completely (not required) the prodigious scope for mortality to be falsely attributed to COVID 19 was on an industrial scale.
It is not credible to imagine that a death registration system as bad as this could have emerged purely by chance. It took planning. It is notable that every element consistently promoted increased recording of COVID 19 mortality. Not one of the changes could have led to any under-reporting. This was a carefully crafted, pseudopandemic mortality deception.
Sources:
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210215225004/https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210111102619/https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/710545/response/1701868/attach/html/3/FOI%207062%20Q%20and%20A%20Response.pdf.html
[3] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101025107/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf
[4] - https://archive.is/oDuzb
[5] - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11427-020-1661-4?
[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200609192137/https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091
[7] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200602035654/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/30/could-nearly-half-of-those-with-covid-19-have-no-idea-they-are-infected
[8] - https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375.short
[9] - https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1165
[10] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210302104948/https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200319234230/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273227/5854.pdf
[12] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200512082250/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-death-certification-process/an-overview-of-the-death-certification-reforms
[13] - https://archive.is/MjYKM
[14] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200512135005/https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/6590/COVID-19-act-excess-death-provisions-info-and-guidance-31-march.pdf
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200604081805/https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsnano.0c02624
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210118190218/https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf
[17] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101114513/https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/COVID-19-coding-icd10.pdf
[18] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200713234711/https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19-20200420-EN.pdf
[19] - https://archive.is/AZbqM
[20] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200501193018/https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2020/03/C0133-COVID-19-Primary-Care-SOP-GP-practice_V2.1_6-April.pdf
[21] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200520052849/https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/publicationofstatisticsondeathsinvolvingcovid19incarehomesinenglandtransparencystatement
[22] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210111120743/https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/europe/coronavirus-uk-on-war-footing-as-confirmed-cases-near-2-000-1.993767
[23] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200915190908/https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/d5e28baf-5789-4b0f-acecfe370eee6223/fe8fa85a-f004-4a0c-81ee4b2b9cd12cbf/Briefing-on-COVID-19-autopsy-Feb-2020.pdf
[24] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201222122558/https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2843/bma-verification-of-death-vod-july-2020.pdf
[25] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200512135006/https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Chief-Coroner-Guidance-No.-34-COVID-19_26_March_2020-.pdf
[26] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210103042536/https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/09/nhs-staff-forbidden-speaking-out-publicly-about-coronavirus
[27] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200512150035/https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878093/revised-guidance-to-medical-practitioners-completing-form-cremation-4.pdf
Chapter 8 - Unthinkable Happens
We must now discuss the part of the pseudopandemic most people will find very difficult to accept. In an effort to convince us that a low mortality respiratory virus was a deadly pandemic the State franchise not only manipulated the death registration process they surreptitiously increased mortality wherever possible.
Most people will instinctively baulk at this suggestion. It is inimical to everything we value about our representative democratic society. Sadly, a brief look at history proves that State franchises have frequently killed their own for political purposes. We don't have to go back very far for clear, documented proof.
Operation Gladio [1] was formally revealed in 1990, by then Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, in an official statement to the Italian parliament. He reported NATO’s hand in a series of terrorist atrocities that had taken place in Italy and other European nations throughout the 1950s to the 1980s. Judicial investigations had uncovered a European wide network of NATO trained and equipped terrorist groups staging false flag terrorist attacks and political assassinations across the continent for decades.
Gladio atrocities included the Piazza Fontana bombing in 1969, which killed 17 and injured 88, the 1972 Peteano Bombing that killed three Italian police officers, the Belgian Brabant massacres, killing 28 and injuring 40 people between 1982 and 1985, and the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station which killed 88 and injured 200.
&
nbsp; Far right terrorist organisations, acting under the direction of NATO and the intelligence services, committed terrorist attacks which were then blamed on far left groups. This was done most notably, but not exclusively, at the behest of the US, UK and Italian secret services. The broad objective was political and social manipulation and often the aim was to demonise the Soviet Union.
The European MSM and political establishment, sometimes unwittingly, falsely alleged the Soviets were ultimately behind many of the attacks. Over the years, European citizens were murdered by their own respective State franchises for purposes including propaganda, election rigging and geopolitical advantage.
The European Parliament published its Resolution on the Gladio Affair [2] in November 1990. This document stated a number of known facts relating to the four decades of covert Gladio operation. The European Parliament recorded:
"In certain Member States military secret services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime as evidenced by, various judicial inquiries."
The resolution then recommended that European governments should:
"Protests vigorously at the assumption by certain US military personnel at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) and in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) of the right to encourage the establishment in Europe of a clandestine intelligence and operation network."
MSM reporting of the Operation Gladio revelations was extremely muted, though some broadsheets mentioned it and the BBC's Timewatch documentary series covered it in detail [3]. Today its existence is rarely discussed, but nonetheless the evidence is indisputable. Western, so called, democratic governments killed their own for political objectives.
Other examples of the UK State franchise's disregard for our lives have included the deliberate release of deadly toxins. Between 1940 and 1979 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Science Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down in Wiltshire ran series of experiments releasing dangerous chemicals and biological agents [4] upon the UK population.