Log In


Reset Password

Lockdowns cause mortality spike, not Covid-19

Opinion Piece

The cat is out of the bag — lockdown measures were the cause of a spike in mortality rates, not Covid-19!

Denis G. Rancourt, by his extensive research* into all-cause mortality figures during Covid-19 in Europe and the USA, has shown “Covid peak” was due to government lockdown actions rather than any novel virus!

Please do remember that next time someone wants to put the whole nation under lockdown. Furthermore, Dr Rancourt's research shows the lockdown measures resulted in “accelerated mass homicide of immune-vulnerable individuals, and individuals made more immune-vulnerable” by government actions. Remember that too, the next time the Government wants to put us all in lockdown to save the vulnerable!

Indeed, the vulnerable were the ones who ultimately paid the price for the insanity of the lockdown; “those who would have died in the next few or more weeks or months can have their deaths accelerated by human intervention, or those who are still recovering from a viral infection can be thrust into more precarious and stressful living conditions.”

This was certainly the case in New Zealand too, where the majority of deaths happened among elderly with multiple health conditions, many in aged-care facilities, some under hospice care.

I highly recommend you read this brilliant research and see how this pandemic was really made and sold to people. If people do not wake up to these facts, we will be subjected to phony “plandemics” again. We owe it to those who died a lonely death, deprived of the love and support of their family and their regular healthcare practitioners, to those whose mental or physical health or livelihoods were adversely affected by the lockdown . . . not to forget the future generations who will bear the economic costs of the lockdown.

Some of the interesting gems in this research paper regarding US statistics were:

' “The ‘Covid peak' in the USA data arises from ‘hot spots', such as New York City.”

' “What is also striking is that some of the largest-population states in the USA, having large numbers of measured and reported cases, and large numbers of individuals with the antibodies, do not show a ‘Covid peak'.” (For example, in California.)

' Furthermore: “. . . none of the seven states that did not impose a lockdown (Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and Arkansas) have a ‘Covid peak'.”

The truth always gets out in the end!

You may ask, and rightly so, how about those computer models** and the epidemiologists who used them to advise our Ministry of Health to put us under lockdown. The answer is simple, just look at their funding sources***, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates wants to vaccinate 7 billion people for Covid-19 and to develop this vaccine, their GAVI organisation (among others) has received millions of dollars from Governments around the world, including $7 million from New Zealand. They will then sell this vaccine, no doubt at huge profit margins, to the same governments!

Albert Einstein: “Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”

References:

* All-cause mortality during Covid-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response. Denis G. Rancourt, PhD: www.researchgate.net/publication/341832637_All-cause_mortality_during_COVID-19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_of_mass_homicide_by_government_response

** Neil Ferguson's Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all time. The boss of a top software firm asks why the Government failed to get a second opinion from a computer scientist: www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/05/16/neil-fergusons-imperial-model-could-devastating-software-mistake/

*** The Infection Group Funding: www.otago.ac.nz/infection-group/funding/index.html

Imperial College London:

www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2020/03/OPP1210755

www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/disease-areas/arboviruses/

Footnote from Ed: Denis Rancourt was a professor of physics at the University of Ottawa until 2009, when he was dismissed over alleged “grade inflation” and “academic squatting” (where the topic of a course is arbitrarily changed without departmental permission). He fought his former employer in high-profile cases over the next five years, sometimes successfully, and now promotes himself as an independent social theorist and science critic.

Simin Williams

Leave a Reply to Darag Rennie Cancel reply

  1. S. Williams says:

    These videos by international best-selling UK author, Dr Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc FRSA, (VernonColeman.com), delivered with a priceless sense of humour, are worth watching:
    He has a youtube channel if you’d like to see more of his videos, but these are some of the relevant ones to our topic here:

    How Many Coincidences Make a Conspiracy?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mCaPxYTXGE

    Why There Will Be A Second Wave (They Need One)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXEoTXOclQM

    Rage Against the Zombies
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV8VUbf_Zo4&app=desktop

    Why We’re Fighting For Our Future – And Why We’ll Win
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6n8IXoDj5g

    This Couldn’t Possibly Happen. Could it?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p0qXvgsc4g

    1. Darag Rennie says:

      He is one of the silver linings of the SARS-CoV-2 fiasco for me. It has brought several people I didn’t know before to my awareness. Apart from his focus on vegetarianism, I think he speaks a lot of common and medical sense.

  2. Jen Brown says:

    This has never been about protecting us against a deadly virus. This has only ever been about compliance and control. During lock down our government progressed 15 bills in 17 hours. How can those in parliament exercise due diligence within this timeframe?
    Traces of SARS-CoV-2 were found in Spanish wastewater from 2019. This was 9 months before it was found in China!
    Doctors and nurses around the world are speaking out about deaths being documented as covid related when in fact these individual were already very ill.
    The latest covid vaccine news shows that this vaccine may not work for “at risk” older people.
    So let me get this straight, they want healthy individuals to be vaccinated even though the research shows complications from natural infection are far less likely. When you start to look at who is funding this global plan, things become a lot clearer.

    Footnote from Ed: Regarding traces of Sars-Cov-2 being found in Spanish wastewater in 2019 – two out of six different tests detected it in samples from March last year. April, May, June etc?? Nothing.
    This work has been universally panned as contamination (it has not been published, it was a preprint) and very sloppy science.
    Ironically, the same sort of data that a guy called Andrew Wakefield knowingly misrepresented to demonstrate MMR vaccine caused . . . never mind . . . .

    1. S. Williams says:

      Well said Jen Brown. I agree. As explained in this previous column (Flattening the curve or flattening freedom?
      http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/20200527/flattening-the-curve-or-flattening-freedom/ )Lockdown had no basis in science or medicine or protecting lives. It was an illegal, criminal activity against our nation and the Covid-19 Public Health Response 2020 Act, was yet another attempt to take away our rights and our democracy.

    2. Dan Suter, Christchurch says:

      Fantastic discussion. Does anyone feel like we are in some kind of George Orwell movie?

      Mind control for sure.

    3. Alan Ireland, Palmerston North says:

      To Ed: “Ironically, the same sort of data that a guy called Andrew Wakefield knowingly misrepresented to demonstrate MMR vaccine caused . . .”

      Wakefield’s study was a case series. It made no claim, and called for further research. Your footnote,* which included the above statement, is itself a misrepresentation. That is the only irony here.

      * To Jen Brown’s comment of June 28.

  3. Martin, Albania says:

    Of course, such a statement would only bless the headlines of the mainscream rags (AKA – newspapers).

    Time for a well-needed turn in the road as the good folks are still laughing at one when you have the gall to ask them if they also believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy!

  4. David Ramsden, UK says:

    It is worth noting that opinion piece by Denis Rancourt has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. It is based on data only up until May – things have moved on since then. One only has to compare Brazil, the UK and New Zealand to see how absolutely effective a lockdown is at controlling the virus, and the disastrous effects of taking either late (the UK) or very little action. In the UK, excess deaths are over 65,000 with 44,000 directly attributed to the virus. Introducing lockdown a week earlier would almost certainly have reduced both those numbers significantly.

    1. S. Williams says:

      David Ramseden forgets to mention that those computer models which were used to justify the lockdown of whole nations were not peer reviewed either. They are now proven false. Indeed, many epidemiologists, scientists, medical doctors argued against lockdowns at the time and their warnings were not heeded. Now the irrefutable data is out. Lockdown was a Farce. It didn’t save lives, it hastened many deaths and caused suffering for many people. The rest of what you say is not borne out by any science or real data and certainly no peer-reviewed paper!! All-cause mortality, as Rancourt has shown, would prove all excess deaths in UK were the result of lockdown, not a virus which has proven less deadly than a seasonal flu.

      1. David Ramsden says:

        Never let the facts get in the way of a riposte.
        The modelling used by Neill Fergusson, which partly informed the UK government’s response to the virus (and to which I think you refer) did not lead to a substantially different response by the UK from that of many other countries.
        The mortality rate (certainly in the early stages of the pandemic) was certainly much higher than seasonal influenza – as stated in The Lancet.
        To ascribe all excess deaths to the lockdown is farcical. Some may have been due to people not seeking medical advice, or other reasons, but many will have been due to Covid 19.
        In the absence of a vaccine, or an immune population, the only way to reduce the reproduction rate is a lockdown. If you look at the graphs of new cases, they all pass their peak after lockdown was introduced, by about the period of the incubation of the disease. QED.
        The world is still at an early stage of this pandemic, and there is still lots to be learnt. Good, solid, hard science will pave the way.

      2. Nobody, California says:

        Irrefutable data? Seriously? I looked at Rancourt’s paper. It’s speculative at best.
        Now we are seeing that as stay-at-home orders were loosened, cases, hospitalizations and deaths are on an upward trend in several states.
        It is now nearing the end of July. There is a lot more data available now.

        In any case, it would be fascinating to hear from the “many” doctors and epidemiologists who advocated against stay at home orders. (They aren’t lockdowns in the US.)
        I’ll search for that, but I have a feeling it’s a big pile of hooey, like many comments on this article.

  5. Darag Rennie, Auckland says:

    Good on you Simin and The Gisborne Herald for posting this article. Why the obvious isn’t obvious to the bulk of the population, stuns me. But I believe it has to do with the mainstream media’s unwillingness to focus on both sides of the argument. By not engaging in the conversation that lockdown was itself a mistaken overreaction, they are engaging in one of the most effective forms of censorship of truth.

  6. S. Williams says:

    In this video interview of Denis Rancourt by Danish physicist/mathematician, Jim Larsen, Rancourt explains his paper in plain English. Please do watch, both US and UK data are analysed:
    “All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fublYhEc_Xo

    1. Mathew Bannister says:

      So, given the relaxation of lockdown in Europe and the USA, the continuing elevation of deaths is due to……..?
      It is very easy to cherry-pick a scientific report that agrees with your position but it takes a scientific outlook to say that the jury is still out, the game is not even at half time and we really still do not know very much.
      What I do predict is that more people will die while people continue to point fingers at what could have been done better in the past, instead of focusing on what needs to happen to recover the situation for the future.

      1. S. Williams says:

        Mathew, can’t you see? That is the brilliance of Dr Rancourt’s research, that he has used “all-cause mortality” data. This solid data is devoid of any interpretation, conjecture or assumptions. After all, a death is a death.
        We were told about Covid since January and the WHO announced a pandemic in late March when lockdowns started in these countries whose data have been analysed by Dr Rancourt. As you see, the so-called “Covid Peak” in these countries has passed and Dr Rancourt shows this strange peak (I would call it lock-down peak) was the result of the lockdown not any novel virus. Please do read his research. It is really not that complicated and he uses real data. Your prediction is based on what?! There is no data supporting your prediction, but there is data showing spike in mortality happened due to the lockdown measures. If lockdowns happen again, yes, there will be more deaths due to them. Covid is now shown to have less mortality rate than the seasonal flu. We don’t need to believe hypes, erroneous computer models or assumptions and fear-mongering predictions any more, because we now have real data to draw upon!

        Footnote from Ed: Please share evidence for your claim that Covid-19 has a lower mortality rate than seasonal flu. Best estimates for the Covid-19 mortality rate, accounting for non-reported/asymptomatic cases via situations of broad testing across some communities, seem to be about 0.5-1 percent – against about 0.1 percent for seasonal flu.

        1. S. Williams says:

          Hi Jeremy, I had already supplied a ref under my reply to Mathew Bannister under this previous column: http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/20200527/flattening-the-curve-or-flattening-freedom/ You had published Mr. Bannister’s comment in the newspaper, but not my reply to it.
          New estimate by CDC reduces COVID-19 death rate to just 0.26% (IFR) from WHO’s 3.4% (CFR)
          https://in.dental-tribune.com/news/new-estimate-by-the-cdc-brings-down-the-covid-19-death-rate-to-just-0-26-as-against-whos-3-4/
          The new estimates of fatality rate released by the CDC are as follows for different age groups:

          0-49 years old: 0.05%
          50-64 years old: 0.2%
          65+ years old: 1.3%
          Overall ages: 0.4%
          I’ll see if I can find more links for you once I have had my dinner!

          Footnote from Ed: Which is still a higher mortality rate than for seasonal flu (about 0.1 percent). Do you want to retract your claim about mortality rates for Covid-19 versus the seasonal flu?
          Also, this article on the estimated deadliness of the coronavirus is worth reading:
          http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

          1. S. Williams says:

            Dear Jeremy, this data from our own MOH website:
            https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases#summary
            Of the total cases of 1528 in NZ we have had 22 deaths, that gives us a mortality rate of .01 which is equivalent of a case fatality rate(CFR) of 1.4% and the IFR (infection fatality rate) would be even less. “If you consider their projection that 35% of all infected cases remain asymptomatic, the overall infection fatality rate (IFR) drops to” just 0.5 % for NZ data.
            And let’s not even mention that many of those 22 death cases assigned to Covid-19 were not even tested for Covid or the test results had come back negative. Also let’s not mention that most had multiple health conditions and some were under hospice care. There is a big difference between dying from Covid and dying with Covid. Yes, let’s not even get to that debate and assume all 22 died from Covid!!
            Hope this helps. Thanks for the article too, will read it as soon as I can. It sounds really interesting. By the way, out of interest, where did you get you flu mortality rate of .1% from? Thank you.

            Footnote from Ed: Other countries provide much larger and more statistically robust data sources than the New Zealand situation. A key reason for our low fatality rate was the fact so many of those infected were young (82 percent under 60).
            Multiple sources indicate around 0.1 percent fatality rate for the seasonal flu. Here are a couple: http://www.health.com/condition/cold-flu-sinus/how-many-people-die-of-the-flu-every-year
            http://www.livescience.com/new-coronavirus-compare-with-flu.html

          2. S. Williams says:

            Thanks Jeremy. NZ is not a banana republic and our MOH collects good data. I appreciated Dr. Bloomfield’s accurate data reporting both during and after lockdown. Like other countries our borders were open for a long time and we were exposed to the same virus as other countries, both our old and our young. We first closed our borders to China on Feb 2nd and to foreigners on March 19th and asked returning Kiwis to self-isolate for 2 weeks. WHO had declared Covid an epidemic on March 11th. Italy went to lockdown on the same day, but we went to lockdown on March 21st and Govt urged those older than 70 stay at home. We went to level 4 -full lockdown- on March 25th. Till then we had 205 confirmed cases and NO DEATHS.
            1st Covid death was announced on March 29th -a west Coast woman in her 70s with multiple health conditions. From April 6th the number of reported cases started to decrease. The curve WAS FLATTENED then! 2nd death announced on April 9th- a Christchurch woman in her 90s. 4 deaths on April 14th, three were linked to a cluster at Christchurch’s Rosewood Rest Home and so on. Last death on May 24th: A person dies after apparently recovering from COVID-19. The death isn’t classified as being from COVID-19 until May 28. It was the last death in New Zealand from the disease to date, bringing the death toll to 22. (source: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/a-timeline-of-how-new-zealand-flattened-the-curve-and-beat-covid-19/ar-BB15aGix?ocid=ientp)
            So, as you see from the timeline above, our “Covid Peak” also happened after the lockdown and the same pattern that Dr. Rancourt describes in his research applies to NZ too. All we need is a journalist or researcher to draw the same all-cause mortality graph for NZ from MOH data and compare it with deaths in previous years during the same period. It will prove that it was the stress of the lockdown (for example shift to hospital from aged-care, denial of family support, etc) that either hastened the deaths of these 22 people or even contributed to their lonely deaths.

            Footnote from Ed: Most of New Zealand’s Covid-19 cases were less susceptible to severe complications from this new disease because they were relatively young and healthy; a big factor in that was the fact our seeding population were fit and healthy enough to be travelling or living/working overseas. That will be the main reason we have a low mortality rate relative to other countries, along with the fact we went into lockdown just as outbreaks got under way here – thereby protecting our vulnerable people. The demographics of our Covid cases is very different to the demographics of our population.
            And again, are you ready to withdraw your claim that seasonal flu is more deadly than Covid-19?

          3. S. Williams says:

            Stanford researcher Dr. John Ioannidis says coronavirus might not be as deadly as flu
            https://www.sott.net/article/434864-Stanford-researcher-Dr-John-Ioannidis-says-coronavirus-might-not-be-as-deadly-as-flu
            In an analysis, Dr. John Ioannidis places the fatality rate between 0.02%-0.4%, far lower than the 1%-and-way-up numbers that were once bandied about – and much closer to the 0.1% death rate of the flu.
            https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2

          4. John Mackay says:

            You are quoting more controversial data. And it is known that the serology data until recently was of extremely poor quality. Therefore data from March is highly suspect and indeed came in for highly mixed views: https://undark.org/2020/06/11/john-ioannidis-politicization/

  7. S.Williams says:

    Modelers Were ‘Astronomically Wrong’ in COVID-19 Predictions, Says Leading Epidemiologist—and the World Is Paying the Price
    https://fee.org/articles/modelers-were-astronomically-wrong-in-covid-19-predictions-says-leading-epidemiologist-and-the-world-is-paying-the-price/
    July 2, 2020
    Ioannidis, the C.F. Rehnborg Chair in Disease Prevention at Stanford University.
    “For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially…”
    “Major consequences on the economy, society and mental health” have already occurred. I hope they are reversible, and this depends to a large extent on whether we can avoid prolonging the draconian lockdowns and manage to deal with COVID-19 in a smart, precision-risk targeted approach, rather than blindly shutting down everything. Similarly, we have already started to see the consequences of “financial crisis, unrest, and civil strife.” I hope it is not followed by “war and meltdown of the social fabric.”
    Ioannidis did not spare modelers who predicted as many as 40 million people would die, or those who claimed the US healthcare system would be overrun.
    “The predictions of most mathematical models in terms of how many beds and how many ICU beds would be required were astronomically wrong,” Ioannidis said. “Indeed, the health system was not overrun in any location in the USA, although several hospitals were stressed.”

  8. Dennis Varnau, USA says:

    In the end it all boils down to what is touched on about individual immunological response. The body has to protect and heal itself. It may need some medical intervention in the way of pharmaceuticals, etc., to assist in the fight, but in the end the body has to finally defeat the infection, viral or bacterial. There are even individuals who survive Ebola naturally. Dairy maids (exposed to cowpox) fared best during the Smallpox epidemic. There are always a net number of deaths due to epidemics, and it is usually the ‘weakest’ among us who succumb to diseases. In the end, everyone dies from something sooner or later. To lock down the world’s healthy for the inevitable “net” who will die, will end up killing more than any virus could ever kill. The nutritional health of the host is the most important part of the equation, and always will be. Man cannot fool nature or change its ways in order to obtain a desired result.