If someone else had supported it (and there were honest people who did) they would immediately be thrown into the eternal fire, as a “heretic”… But now it is an official institution of the Italian state: the Istituto Superiore di Sanita (ISS). Among other things, the ISS was studying (from the beginning of the hygiene terror campaign) the death records attributed to the plague. A statistical/classification-based job, one of those that serious (state) bureaucracies need, to know “where they are going.”
The latest ISS report includes significant data that (in our opinion) definitively debunks the alleged lethality of the coronavirus, revealing the extent of the lies in the creative death accounting upon which the sanitarian terror campaign was built. However, care and not haste is needed in understanding these elements – for those who want to understand how (and how easily) the bosses of the complex managed to distort reality.
In the first paragraph the report introduces itself: This report describes the characteristics of 130,468 patients sars-cov-2 who died in Italy from the beginning of recording until October 5, 2021… One concludes that 130,468 Italian men and women fell ill AND died BECAUSE of the vaccine; this is certainly the dominant biopolitical narrative…
However, on the 3rd page, with the “neutrality” of simple arithmetic, the report (referring to underlying diseases…) describes reality. The emphasis with bold is ours:
Table 1 presents the most common comorbidities diagnosed before infection with sars-cov-2, in a sample of patients who tested positive for sars-cov-2. Data on diseases … were available for 7,910 patients who died in hospitals, for whom it was possible to analyze clinical records…. In any case, the sample is opportunistic: it represents deaths only of individuals who required hospitalization… The average number of diseases was 3.7. Overall, 2.9% of the sample presented no other diseases, 11.4% (902 individuals) had one, 18% (1,424 individuals) had two, and 67.7% (5,354 individuals) had three or more.
We don’t know why for over 120,000 it was “not feasible” to have statistically usable clinical records… Let it remain as a question. From there on, it is absolutely clear: 2.9% of the 7,910 patients who died in Italian hospitals with the plague, that is 230 individuals, actually died FROM complications (acute pneumonias) of the infection. They/Them died FROM sars-cov-2, since they were (before the infection) healthy… (And we are not wondering about deaths due to incorrect treatments or other medical errors…). The remaining 7,680? What did they die from? If (for the sake of understanding these specific data) we assume that the positive results of the unreliable tests were correct, then the only certainty is that while 230 individuals died FROM the plague, 7,680 died WITH the plague… The difference between FROM and WITH is enormous! (Some heretical voices were shouting from the spring of 2020 that there must be a distinction between deaths FROM and deaths WITH the virus, otherwise it is a systematic deception…)
The report also records the complications attributed to the chipmunk (out of a total of 7,910 individuals). Acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney failure, acute heart failure, co-infection. (This refers to hospital-acquired infections—and it is rather provocative to present hospital-acquired infections as a “complication of the virus”…) These numbers show that the majority of the 7,910 exhibited serious respiratory problems; and since the total complications were 11,547, each one presented (on average…) 1.46 complications. Hence, “some additional” complications beyond respiratory issues.
However: when 70%, 80%, 90% of those in the general population who are found (through tests…) to have been infected have NOT shown or are showing any serious side effects (most may not have even realized they were “infected”), why is it that only for that small percentage of citizens who already have one, two, three, five serious health problems is it referred to as a “virus side effect” and not as consequences of their poor health condition combined with a sudden, harsh, isolated hospitalization during which they were forbidden to see anything other than the ceiling? Many elderly people with health problems, for example, fall and break their hip; they end up in the hospital and often die from a combination of factors… Who, however, would use “loss of strength” as a death threat for the general population, essentially employing a terrorist terminology?
Do comorbidities answer the question of how many of the 7,680 died FROM and not WITH the coronavirus? In our opinion, no. Each person dies alone and not as a statistical component; and one cannot himself say exactly what it was that killed him… Therefore what is declared as the cause of death by those who keep the relevant records is what is statistically (and politically) critical; not the real cause for each death separately.
We need to make an unpleasant digression here…
…About death
What medicine has defined as death is the stopping of the heart. Consequently, as a “cause of death” is considered what causes the heart to stop. However, when there is comorbidity, this is not simple. Practically, the one who compiles the “death certificate” (in the case of terrorism, this work was done even by doormen…) must judge which they consider the “main” cause; and, to add below, anything they judge as “secondary,” if they have the time and inclination. It is possible that this differentiates the cases of the 7,680 deaths from all the rest: for the vast majority of death certificates of patients with comorbidities, the explanation was (became) monosyllabic, “standard,” perfunctory, so hasty that it was only useful for the funeral office… A kind of mass production of death certificates…
Why and where however does this recording matter? For the one who has died it has no… For his relatives (who are anxious about whether he will live or not) the precise explanation has little (if any) significance, especially if their person suffers from various illnesses. (Usually more significance is attached to being convinced that “everything possible was done to avoid the fatal outcome”).
On the contrary, recording the cause(s) of death from illness/es is of great importance for the epidemiology of the state. For its “biopolitics.” In good cases (and there are such cases), knowing that deaths from a certain cause have increased in the country mobilizes the health resources and care (available in public health systems) for better management of the (general) problem that has emerged. Just as every population census is important, so too are the annual records of deaths and their causes a basis for exercising state policy. Essentially, the general picture of a population’s health status can be shaped or distorted precisely at this scale—the scale of state policy.
This clarifies something crucial from a political perspective. The certifier, with whatever subjective opinion of his own (and thus also the certification) he may have, engages in dialogue with the state and not with the deceased or his relatives. It is to the state that every opinion regarding cause-of-death is addressed, and even more so the collection, classification, and statistical processing of all opinions, regardless of their accuracy. The issue of this accuracy is not a matter of “ethics”: no dead person will be resurrected if the opinion on the cause of his death is wrong! It is rather a matter of political relationship (in the literal meaning of the word “political”: technique of power) between each individual and the central authority (of the certifiers).
Consequently, one might expect a fundamentally authentic (even if not always accurate) recording of the cause(s) of each death ONLY when this is based exclusively and solely on the subjective assessment of the doctor treating each patient individually. Conversely, if there is a central directive regarding what the opinion should be, then the recording (in its entirety) reflects only that directive and nothing else! Without creating any particular “moral” problem for the recorder, provided that he/she knows well that his/her duty relates to the one who gave the directive… If there are truths or interest-driven lies regarding the causes of deaths, the state and its biopolitics are their managers, one way or another. If it wants lies… it will have them… Why should the recorders oppose it? (Only for reasons of personal and/or professional ethics. But…)
We know that such a directive / order was issued regarding the tsahpini. It was issued by the WHO, transmitted from there to the countries and health ministries, from the ministries to the hospitals (and nursing homes), from the hospital administrations to doctors, security guards, doormen, and whoever else undertook to fill out the relevant documents in a duty that was clearly “copy / paste”. The order eventually reached the entire population: when they tell you “covid” for the death of your relative, blow your top! The directive / order said: whoever / whoever is positive for sars-cov-2 and dies from any reason even a month after discharge from a care facility (as healthy of course…) should be recorded as dead from sars-cov-2! (In England, their one month seemed too short, and they made it three: putting deaths from traffic accidents, workplace accidents, and perhaps even suicides in the “common pool” of deaths…)
Obviously, any medical scrupulousness for the most accurate justification of deaths was not only rendered useless but would also prove dangerous under such an order! Which, of course, was not medical. It was political, highly political! We have already said, however, that this is essentially what the recording itself amounts to. Therefore, this advance warning of “concentration of opinions on the cause of death” (a kind of “concentration of life/death capital”) by the states simply reversed the process: instead of caregivers informing the state about what is happening with their patients’ deaths, the state “informed” (i.e., ordered) doctors and every other “involved party” about what it would like to apply regarding the deaths of its citizens!
Not at all “simple”!
With this data, the only accurate and honest thing to say would be: a) 7,910 people who died in Italian hospitals had tested “positive” (with useless tests…), b) 230 of them actually died FROM pneumonia complications due to their infection by sars-cov-2, c) the remaining 7,680 died WITH the coronavirus… but we were ordered not to investigate too deeply when something bad happens and, since they had it WITH them, to blindly write that they died FROM it… This made this rather tedious job of justification much easier; so easy that we didn’t even need to do it ourselves (the treating/supervising doctors), but anyone could do it…
In our utterly humble opinion, when the ISS data are drawn from the narrow medical context and understood within the political context (to which they truly belong), they show that the deaths that can indeed be attributed to the chip are 2.9%, let’s say 3% of the “common pool”!!
This, for the Italian case, from the beginning of the terror campaign until October 5, 2021, means 3,914 “victims of covid” – and not 130,468 as the creative death accounting would have it. Not one more!!! Why? Because wherever there was even one (at least) additional illness, it was forbidden to be evaluated as a cause of death! Because, ultimately, wherever the biopolitics of the state/capital gains the monopoly of definitions and management (for example: what is a “crime” and what are the correct punishments…), reality becomes distorted. As much as needed to fit and justify / legitimize the exercise of power. (If the perception of the criminologists of the system is considered “objective”, then almost all Roma people could be treated as criminals… for example).
When the political facades decreed that from now on you will all be considered sick, they revealed their decision to distort and encode reality according to the interests of the complex. The order was absolutely transparent both in meaning and in its purposes. Unfortunately, the subordinates did not understand…
The death toll of the bosses of the complex was (and remains) a political tool – a tool of the technique of power. That is why we are not only entitled but obliged to challenge it politically – as an art of anti-power!…