Freedom of Information… and Midazolam

22 November 2021

A Freedom of Information request into the Office for National Statistics (ONS) asking about yearly death rates per year in the U.K since 1990 up until the end of December 2020 was responded to with a table of data available here.

The data there is presented below, with “Crude Mortality Rate (per 100,000 population)” for the years 2020, 2000 and 1990 in bold.

Those “Crude Mortality Figures” work out to the following percentages of the population who died of all causes in those highlighted years:

1990: 1.117%
2000: 1.031%
2020: 1.016%

In the year we are told the deadliest pandemic in human history hit the UK requiring lockdowns, business closures, mass unemployment and of course the biggest “vaccine” push ever seen, the overall death rate was less than the year 2000 and the year 1990, and many others. There was no panic or dire warnings of deadly pandemics back then when the figures were higher… how come?

There was an increase on the previous year (2019) and some before that, and this can be explained by several things. Firstly the strategy the NHS drew up after a “pandemic planning exercise” in 2016 to withdraw hospital care from people in nursing homes in the event of a “pandemic”. According to an article in the Telegraph on 30th July 2021, a doctor working with lawyers had requested information under the Freedom of Information Act, had initially been denied by the Government but that was overturned by the Information Commissioner and had obtained the two reports, one titled “Pandemic Influenza Briefing Paper: NHS Surge and Triage” (PDF link) and the other titled “Pandemic Influenza briefing paper: Adult social care and community health care” (PDF link), both listed as “CONFIDENTIAL” and “OFFICIAL SENSITIVE”.

It is important to note that the Telegraph is not doing the job of a proper exposé here, they are doing damage-control. There are plenty of independent journalists actually reporting the truth out there and the Establishment can only ignore things for so long. If they are unable to completely supress this kind of information, it’s time for the fact-checkers and MSM to put their spin on it. The usual tactic often employed by the likes of the BBC is to present this “shocking revelation” as if they are on the side of truth, that this is breaking news that they have exclusively uncovered in their never-ending journalistic crusade. This is not what they are doing, and most definitely is not what the Telegraph is doing here. The grains of truth that were out there already are mixed in with standard propaganda which is how it is most effective.

Dominic Cummings is quoted, which tells you a fair amount of what you need to know. The Government’s top strategist, ousted for his faux-pas in getting spotted breaking “lockdown rules” and his subsequent lame excuses is back, claiming “many people were left to die in horrific circumstances”. The tone of this article is intended to prop up the narrative that the NHS was indeed under such immense pressure that they abandoned care-home residents, following the “secret plan” they had made a few years earlier.

The article states that “more than 42,000 residents in England and Wales died during the pandemic”, and that is not going to be all the deaths that occurred in 2020 due to the removal of NHS care we’re all made to pay for from most of the population, but even if it was, taking 42,000 off the 608,002 deaths in 2020 (which is allegedly when most of the pandemic deaths occurred now the jab is saving everyone) we’re left with 566,002 which then brings the percentage of deaths of the overall population down to 0.946%.

Looking at UK hospital bed availability and occupancy (data here), specifically for general and acute beds only, not maternity/mental health beds etc. we can see a minor drop in beds available for 2020/21 but a huge drop in occupied beds from the following graph:

This proves the NHS was not under any excess pressure, even taking into account the excuse they give which is that “hospital capacity has had to be organised in new ways as a result of the pandemic to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately and safely”. Taking that at face value explains the drop in bed availability, as long as we ignore the fact that the Nightingale Hospitals that were also set up were not used and then quietly dismantled. It doesn’t explain the huge dip in bed occupancy at the height of the so-called “pandemic”.

So how then, was everything since March 2020 including lockdowns, massive wastes on testing, the removal of NHS services from the public that is forced to pay for it, and now so-called “vaccines” and the subsequent “passports”, how has all that been justified given the Government’s own figures above that prove there hasn’t been a real pandemic?

The first UK lockdown began on 26th March 2020. Obviously there had been a lot of hysteria in the media and from the Government, after initially stating things like Chris Witty’s remarks reported on the 5th March 2020 by the Independent that “the great majority of people will recover from this virus, even if they are in their 80s”, clarifying the words “great majority” as “over 90 per cent” which of course we know is 99%+ even using their manipulated data.

But with the lockdown, to justify that and all that was to come, there needed to be something they could point to, some scary things that would get the public to submit to all this, as people’s lived experiences were (and mostly still are) that nobody they knew was ill, and there was no pandemic to speak of unless you just believed what came out of your TV and dismissed the evidence of your own eyes.

So what they did was to discharge as many elderly people who were generally unwell into “care homes”. They also changed the regulations on death certification, cremations and inquests. After that, they did away with over 40,000 elderly people in those “care homes” using end-of-life drugs, mostly concentrated in the month of April 2020. The media AKA propaganda machines then did their jobs and reported this “wave” of deaths alleging it was all from COVID-19 and the rest as they say, is history.

That is quite the statement, but it can be proven and we shall go through the evidence that confirms that not only did this happen, but it was decided that it would be done. This was not a “perfect storm”, or a “failure of imagination” or “incompetence” or any of the other usual excuses that are supposed to make the public just pretend abhorrent Government behaviour that deliberately takes lives was just an unfortunate accident.

Let’s start with the the discharge of unwell elderly people into “care homes”. Here is a link to a document (mirror) on the Government website titled “COVID-19 Hospital Discharge Service Requirements” where you can see on page 3 in the summary section under points 1.3 and 1.4…

Based on these criteria, acute and community hospitals must discharge all patients as soon as they are clinically safe to do so. Transfer from the ward should happen within one hour of that decision being made to a designated discharge area. Discharge from hospital should happen as soon after that as possible, normally within 2 hours.

Implementing these Service Requirements is expected to free up to at least 15,000 beds by Friday 27th March 2020, with discharge flows maintained after that. Acute and community hospitals must keep a list of all those suitable for discharge and report on the number and percentage of patients on the list who have left the hospital and the number of delayed discharges through the daily situation report.

Page 3 – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/911541/COVID-19_hospital_discharge_service_requirements_2.pdf

This was (according to the document) published on the 19th March, the first lockdown was announced on the 23rd March and came into effect on the 26th March, and by the 27th the intention was to have booted “at least 15,000” people out of hospital. Now we know that hospital beds are hard to come by, as for years waiting lists for serious operations and other treatments that require hospitalisation have been on the increase. It’s not like these 15,000+ hospital patients were in there for a holiday and were being asked to cut their spring break short. They get people out of hospitals as quickly as they can, so this instruction to “discharge all patients as soon as they are clinically safe to do so” is what they always do. This was presumably something over and above what they would normally do. Hospitals do not and cannot keep people in if they have no need to be there, generally. But in just over a week from the publication of this instruction they were somehow going to free up 15,000 or more beds, with the intention of continuing that process to free up even more beds. All this at the same time the triumvirate of Boris Johnson, Patrick Vallance and Chris Witty were hypnotising the masses with their rule-of-three chants to “stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”, something most people did, many to their own detriment.

We have seen from the figures and graph earlier that this was extremely effective, as the bed occupancy dropped immediately by 36.12% and despite making around 10,000 less beds available during 2020 were still only 63.11% of capacity in the first quarter (April/May/June), 77.35% in the second quarter, 83.13% in the third quarter (October/November/December) and 82.95% in quarter four.

This means that in those four quarters the beds occupied and free figures were these:

Q1 – 63.11% full – 34,140 beds empty
Q2 – 77.35% full – 21,466 beds empty
Q3 – 83.13% full – 16,128 beds empty
Q4 – 82.95% full – 16,415 beds empty

The NHS in the winter had over 16,000 empty beds in general and acute wards at the time we were being told they were at breaking point, and at the “height of the pandemic” having booted out thousands of patients had over 34,000 empty beds. Just think about that next time you hear an NHS evangelist or COVID cultist tell you how evil you are for not taking a pointless jab and that you’re going to be clogging up the NHS. At the peak of the alleged deadliest pandemic ever they had over a third of their beds sitting empty, and that was after deliberately making 10,000 less beds available.

An important detail is that the NHS only lists a bed as available if they have staff to manage it, and care for the would-be occupant. Something we are expected to believe is that there were staffing shortages, which would obviously impact the number of people that could be treated. Those empty bed figures were not empty beds because there was no staff. The NHS reporting takes staff levels into account when counting available and occupied beds, so any attempt to dismiss 34,140 empty beds at the height of the pseudo-pandemic as being because loads of staff were off ill with COVID-19 or self-isolating is incorrect.

Of course it should be acknowledged that there are many nurses and doctors that do an amazing job, and are under a lot of pressure. This is unfortunately always the case, and despite the Government’s pretence of caring about the NHS, it has been used as a political tool, as it always is, in this case to corral the public into self-imposing the freedom-removing rules and not using the Public Health Service we’re all made to pay for, all under the rainbow banner of “protecting the NHS”, as if a public-funded organisation needs protecting from the very people who pay for it and it’s sole existence is to treat. It is sheer madness and a testament to the power of propaganda that not only did huge numbers of the public go along with it, but they cheered for it, banging their pots and pans on their doorsteps in some weird weekly ritual.

Returning to the figures, we are looking at April 2020 specifically, and so the first quarter figures are what we should be considering here. After reducing the number of beds available, they turfed out “at least 15,000” people in just over a week and continued that policy for some months.

March 2020 also saw the introduction of the Coronavirus Act 2020 by the UK Government which changed laws on things like:

Mental health and mental capacity
Health service indemnification
Registration of deaths
Investigatory powers
Fingerprints and DNA profiles
Food supply
Inquests
Powers relating to potentially infectious persons
Powers relating to events, gatherings and premises
Powers in relation to bodies

…amongst other things. So as the NHS was kicking people out of hospitals, the Government had changed laws so that the Authorities can…

“indemnify a person in respect of a qualifying liability”
“make arrangements for a person to be indemnified”
not to “require a confirmatory medical certificate” for cremations
suspend the “requirement to hold inquest with jury” of deaths

…and so on. You get the idea.

Looking at where the deaths occurred is also revealing, as the dataset from the ONS here shows. This is the 2020 data for excess deaths, and table 5a has them broken down by “places of death”, those being either “home”, “hospital”, “care home” or “other”. As we have seen there were some excess deaths in 2020, but not the 100,000+ COVID-19 deaths we’re led to believe. According to that dataset, in the month of April, deaths were up by 98.76% on the previous 5 year average, and breaking this down into the places shows…

Home: 19,404 (up 89.5%)
Hospital: 36,561 (up 72.7%)
Care Home: 28,013 (up 194.9%)
Other: 4,163 (up 21.2%)

An increase in that one month (April 2020) of almost 100%, and almost 200% in care homes obviously suggests something happened. For the rest of 2020 numbers were a bit higher than usual, particularly in the winter months as the hype surrounding the upcoming “vaccine” was being engineered. August 2020 saw a drop in deaths everywhere except the home, and a drop over all. This could be because the effects of people not being able to see a doctor, or go to hospital for anything non-COVID related was beginning to have the effect everyone knew it would, i.e. people would start dying at home from things they’d otherwise had survived had they been provided the treatment they pay the NHS for in taxes/NI.

Such a disproportionate increase in care home deaths should lead to questions as to how and why that happened. According to the website carehome.co.uk, there are about 17,600 care homes in the UK with an estimated 490,326 residents. According to the ONS there is an estimated 605,181 people in the UK aged 90 and over. The 5 year average for annual care home deaths is 116,495 so it would seem that over 20% of care home residents die each year, which is obviously way more than the average population mortality rate which is (as we have seen) around 1%, but a spike like that, almost three times the usual number at that time of year should be investigated. We’re told COVID-19 does not discriminate, and as we have seen respiratory ailments do affect you the older you are and the more you have wrong with you already. But the idea that a community spreading virus could target care homes so disproportionately makes no sense. People were forbidden to visit their relatives in those care homes. There are a multitude of heart-breaking stories of people not allowed to visit their parents/grandparents and never saw them alive again.

The claim is that these elderly people kicked out of hospital into care homes were all infected with COVID-19 and spread it amongst the other residents, and that’s why so many died. The problem with that story is that if you believe it, you must therefore accept that the NHS discharged sick, infectious people into environments that hold the most vulnerable. Given the document issued to hospitals instructing them to discharge patients to free up beds “as soon as they are clinically safe to do so”, discharging people allegedly infected with the disease you’re concerned about seems like a massively negligent thing to do, and goes directly against the advice from the document, and against all common sense and logic. No one has appeared to be held accountable for this, why not?

Should we conclude then, that people were indeed discharged, as the figures support that, but they were “clinically safe”, i.e. not infected with COVID-19, and that they were either sent home or to care-homes to free up beds? That seems to fit the evidence. The only other option is that they discharged huge numbers of sick, infectious people into the community, including care homes. It has to be one or the other.

The two possibilities we are presented with are:

1. The NHS wilfully sent thousands of infectious COVID-19 patients into the community, mostly into care homes, on the basis that they were freeing up beds to deal with the pending community outbreak of COVID-19, and then thousands of people died, allegedly from COVID-19 mostly in the following 3-4 weeks and mostly in those places they were discharged to.

or

2. The NHS discharged thousands of people who were clinically safe to do so, not infectious or a threat, into the community, mostly into care homes and then COVID-19 somehow disproportionately targeted those care homes but not care home workers, this despite relatives being forbidden to visit and doctors not attending.

If you picked option one, then you should be demanding an investigation into how mass death in the thousands by negligence could occur, and how the deliberate introduction of COVID-19 into the very places Public Health is now demanding workers are jabbed in 2021 to be able keep their jobs could have possibly happened. If you picked option two, you might be thinking there’s still missing pieces of the puzzle, and you’d be right.

If you were going to plan a way of culling the elderly and generate fear based on a sudden increase in deaths to justify the rest of your schemes, what better way to do it than to send them into care homes, forbid all contact from relatives, and ship in medication that will prematurely end their lives, after changing the laws to halt inquests, and provide immunity from any legal repercussions?

These are unpleasant topics, and the discussion of deaths, numbers and places of occurrence does not detract from the sad loss of each and every one of those people no longer alive, but we owe it to those people who have had their lives taken from them via Government interventions or worse still, their lives ended with drugs they did not need to establish what has happened, how it happened and make sure it can never happen again. We are obviously some way off that, as the Government continues to inject people, now including children regardless of how badly it might affect them. It is going to take something significant to get enough people in enough numbers to stop this from carrying on to the horrific conclusion this is intended to lead to, which is lots more deaths, and a future of medically enforced tyranny. This is why it is so important to look at this data, look at the evidence and ask questions, otherwise the people who have been killed so far will never have any kind of justice done. It’s not going to bring them back to life, but those that are responsible, and/or complicit need to be stopped and held to account. To do that we need to examine this data, ask those questions and demand answers.

The next question therefore is “how did so many extra people die, in that one month of April 2020?”. Well a documented and videoed conversation between the ex-Health Secretary Matt Hancock and Luke Evans explains much of that. Here is a clip from the Health and Social Care Committee meeting, held on 17th April 2020…

Here is a transcript of that section (full transcript of entire meeting available on the Government website here and a mirror)…

Q376 Dr Evans: Secretary of State, thank you for all the hard work that you and your team are doing. One of the things that was potentially missing from your battle plan is that when we talk about battle and medicine, death is an inevitability and something that you have to deal with. You have put in a Herculean effort to get ITU spaces and ventilators, but a lot of people who will suffer from coronavirus and other conditions will never make it to the intensive care unit. What sort of provision do you have for the number of people who may be dying at home? I have a few questions about that. Do you know, or have an estimate of, the number of people who are dying at home?

Matt Hancock: We do know the number of people who die outside of hospital, who, very largely, die at home. That comes back to the very first exchange I had with the Chair on the number of deaths reported. They are reported through the ONS, because we have to collect the data from the death certificates.

Q377 Dr Evans: A good death needs three things: equipment, medication and the staff to administer it. On equipment, do you have enough syringe drivers in the NHS to deliver medications to keep people comfortable when they are passing away?

Matt Hancock: Yes, we have. A challenge was raised on that about eight days ago—it was not as big a challenge as was made public, and we have resolved it. Yes; right now we have enough.

Q378 Dr Evans: The syringe drivers are used to deliver medications such as midazolam and morphine. Do you have any precautions in place to ensure that we have enough of those medications?

Matt Hancock: Yes. We have a big project to make sure that the global supply chains for those sorts of medications, as well as the ITU medications that I spoke about earlier, are clear. In fact, those medicines are made in a relatively small number of factories around the world, so it is a delicate supply chain and we are in contact with the whole supply chain.

Q379 Dr Evans: In line with that, morphine is currently prescribed per patient. The reason for that is to stop it being abused. I would have to prescribe it for Mr Hancock, for example. In this situation, however, if you are going into a healthcare home, you may not want to waste precious things such as morphine. Have you considered relaxing the laws on doctors and healthcare professionals prescribing morphine, so that there is no waste?

Matt Hancock: That is something we keep under review. I have looked at that particular point, to reduce wastage of key medicines. It is something that the supply and clinical teams in the Department talk about all the time. I do not know if that is JVT’s part of the clinical team. He may want to say more.

Professor Van-Tam: Thank you. I have nothing really to add on that.

Pages 39 + 40 – https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/288/default/

Let’s take a look at this conversation. Bear in mind when this was, the 17th April 2020. They are having this conversation almost a full month after the instructions to the NHS to discharge as many people as possible were given, based on the publication date of the 19th March 2020. And lockdown had been put in place on the 26th March 2020.

April was the month we saw a huge jump in deaths, especially in care homes but in hospitals and at home too. This was also the time as we have seen from the NHS bed data, that they were at less than two thirds capacity.

Luke Evans asks for a number, or an estimate of people dying at home. Matt Hancock says they do know the number, but he doesn’t say what it is. He doesn’t answer the question. He didn’t answer that question at any point, not even earlier as he alluded. Evans doesn’t seem even slightly bothered by the lack of an answer to his question, he just then starts talking about “a good death” and what that needs.

This is not the place to debate the morality of euthanasia but it is illegal, and it is important to understand that Luke Evans choice of words here is unlikely to be accidental. He is a doctor, and will know very well what the words “a good death” really means. Euthanasia is listed on Wikipedia for example and is described as:

Euthanasia (from Greek: εὐθανασία ‘good death’: εὖ, eu ‘well, good’ + θάνατος, thanatos ‘death’) is the practice of intentionally ending life to relieve pain and suffering.

Hmmm. Evans then asks about there being enough Midazolam, Morphine and syringe drivers (machines that automatically administer medication) to which Matt Hancock assures Evans and the rest of the meeting participants that they “have a big project” to make sure there’s plenty of all that stuff. We shall see just how big a project this was in a moment. Finally Evans asks a question about relaxing the laws on the prescribing of morphine, “so that there is no waste”. This sounds like a non-sequitur to me. How could relaxing the laws on prescribing anything reduce waste? Answers on a postcard if you have any ideas. Of course Hancock blathers on about how he has (naturally) looked at that particular point and it is all kept under review. Jonathan Van-Tam is invited to comment, but apparently has nothing to add.

So just how big was this “project” of Matt Hancock’s to keep the “delicate supply chain” clear to deliver all of the “good deaths” Evans is keen on?

The following graph will give you an idea…

To give a reasonable baseline, this is two sets of data from July 2017 to June 2021. The black line and left column is all cause mortality per week. As you can see, the end of 2017 and the start of 2018 there was a bit of a spike, and until April 2020 it was fairly steady. The red line and right column is Midazolam prescriptions per month, taken from NHS prescription data. The sources of the data are shown at the bottom of the graph. This data is readily available, although the prescription data is somewhat cumbersome at around 180GB for that time period.

The average number of Midazolam prescriptions for the previous 33 months (i.e. July 2017 to March 2020) was 188,957 and April 2020 was 341,852 which is an increase of 80.91%. It then remained above the previous average for the rest of the year, but that average was 221,797 which includes a spike in January 2021. Those prescriptions match the all cause mortality curves pretty well, and suggests that the excess usage of Midazolam, especially in April 2020 would have contributed to the excess mortality seen.

Literally while Matt Hancock and Luke Evans sat and chatted casually about administering “good deaths”, people were having their lives ended with Midazolam, disproportionately in care homes while their families and friends were forbidden to visit them.

Midazolam is not an appropriate treatment for respiratory illnesses, as it is known to cause respiratory depression. This is euthanasia, not necessarily even justified by the notion that these people were dying as all the ways to be able to check and ensure there was no abuse were removed by the Government.

The “Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient” was a so-called “care pathway” in the UK (but not Wales) that was alleged to help doctors and nurses provide quality end-of-life care. As Wikipedia explains:

The Liverpool Care Pathway was developed by Royal Liverpool University Hospital and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in the late 1990s for the care of terminally ill cancer patients. The LCP was then extended to include all patients deemed dying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

It says that “The LCP is no longer in routine use after public misconceptions of its nature”, but the reality is the idea sounds (like many other public health claims) caring, attempting to relieve suffering etc. but in practice the implementation was poor. Hospitals were financially incentivised to hit targets related to the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway, and as reported by The Telegraph in October 2012:

Almost two thirds of NHS trusts using the Liverpool Care Pathway have received payouts totalling millions of pounds for hitting targets related to its use, research for The Daily Telegraph shows.

The figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal the full scale of financial inducements for the first time.

They suggest that about 85 per cent of trusts have now adopted the regime, which can involve the removal of hydration and nutrition from dying patients.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121031234651/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9644287/NHS-millions-for-controversial-care-pathway.html

The public were told the LCP was to be phased out, and individual patients were to be treated on an individual basis, including for palliative care as the idea of a National Health Service being paid extra taxpayers money to deliberately end lives is beyond shocking. Having seen the evidence of massive overuse of Midazolam above, at the time Hancock and chums were discussing administering “good deaths”, the Government removing all checks and balances they could, the NHS booting people from hospitals to then have over a third of their beds empty, the now acknowledged misuse of ventilators that will also have resulted in unnecessary deaths in hospitals, and the admission (as reported by the BBC) of “blanket do not resuscitate” orders also at that time, and people being ordered to stay at home and not bother the NHS who will then have died of all kinds of things they otherwise would not have… tells us that as it was expected, the very worst aspects of LCP are still in use when it suits, and explains the small increase in mortality in 2020.

And that small amount of deliberately caused excess mortality is what was used to justify everything happening since, the crack-dealer like obsession with COVID injections, the lockdowns, the “vaccine passports”, the totalitarian trampling of inalienable human rights under the guise of public health. The evidence presented above, while partially circumstantial provides a compelling reason for this to be fully investigated. When you add all the other conflicts of interest, allegiances to various globalist groups with outwardly stated agendas that directly benefit from the charade the world is witnessing, to pretend there is nothing to see is to acquiesce to demonstrable liars and tyrants.

Hannah Arendt, a Jew who had narrowly escaped Nazi Germany wrote a book titled “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” which was an analysis the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the top Nazis that was tried in Jerusalem after WW2. She was not, as some critics have asserted, suggesting that evil is commonplace, or should be somehow normalised as uninteresting. The “banality of evil” she refers to is not the trivialisation of the outcome of evil, but that a kind of lens of bureaucracy that Arendt calls “the rule of Nobody” just turns boring administrators, normal men and women into almost anonymous parts of a machine that means things just happen, evil things, without people even really noticing at times. Arendt wrote:

The essence of totalitarian government, and perhaps the nature of every bureaucracy, is to make functionaries and mere cogs in the administrative machinery out of men, and thus to dehumanize them.

The public is tired of politicians and politics. It has become either banal, boring and unengaging, or it is deliberately inflammatory over the wrong issues. The Governments and their globalist masters have engineered a system so contrived, so bloated and tedious, so obnoxious that only super-ideologically driven types even care anymore about what decisions are being made to change humanity itself. And those ideologues are nothing short of useful idiots as far as the Global Governance types are concerned.

That being said, getting engaged with politics is of course not the answer. There is an alternative to the false dichotomy of keeping your head down, paying your taxes like a good citizen and obeying your masters, or embracing the system and becoming part of the tyrannical machine. The other option is to disengage completely. Create our own communities, our own support networks, our own economies.

We can then begin to hold the real criminals to account.