Professor Warns Cancer Deaths Due to COVID Disruption Will Be Greater Than Deaths From Coronavirus

400 cancers a week being missed because people are not getting hospital treatment.

By Paul Joseph Watson – 4/24/2020

A professor at King’s College London has warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths over the next 5 years than the number of people who die from coronavirus in the UK due to the disruption caused by the coronavirus lockdown, which is preventing cancer victims from getting treatment.

Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health and director of its Institute of Cancer Policy, said: “The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself over the next five years.”

Many people are avoiding hospitals, partly due to fear of coronavirus and partly due to the NHS implying that people should stay away so as not to burden doctors and nurses.

This means that routine cancer screenings have all but stopped and there will be a massive backlog once normality resumes.

“The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering,” said Sullivan. “Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel and breast.”

People didn’t suddenly stop getting cancer when the coronavirus outbreak started, but now they are not getting treatment.

One wonders what the point is in allowing such disruption in the name of saving lives, only to lose more lives to cancer in the long run.

“Some stroke and heart attack patients are routinely waiting more than two hours for an ambulance, while 2,300 cancer diagnoses are being missed each week because patients are not going to see their GP or because they are not being referred for urgent tests and scans at hospital,” reports the Daily Mail.

Screen Shot 2020-04-24 at 10.47.41 AM

“Another 400 cancers a week are, it is estimated, being missed because breast, cervical and bowel cancer screening has been suspended. For any of these patients, delay can be a death sentence.”

As we previously highlighted, despite many predictions that the NHS would be “overwhelmed” by coronavirus, acute hospital beds across the United Kingdom are four times emptier than normal.

One of the overspill hospitals built to handle with an excess of patients due to coronavirus in the north east remains empty and will never be used.

In addition, the temporary Nightingale hospital in London has “remained largely empty since it opened,” according to HSJ.

Despite all this, the UK government has refused to even suggest when lockdown measures may end.

Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty also said that social distancing measures will have to remain in place until a vaccine is available, something that could take more than a year.

A graph also shows that, when population differences are factored in, Sweden, which hasn’t imposed any mandatory lockdown measures, has virtually the same death rate as England, which has been under lockdown for over a month.


Covid-19’s meant to be a new Black Death, but in Britain no more people are dying than NORMAL. What does this say about the virus?

Screen Shot 2020-03-31 at 11.22.06 AM

By Peter Andrews 3/31/2020

Many people are waking up to the fact that the Covid-19 “pandemic” is not turning out as billed. When we finally emerge from it, the big question will be how many people have died from the virus. Here’s the most likely outcome.

You can bet that the institutions of international government, and the “experts” advising them, will try to massage and cherry-pick statistics to present the version of events that most closely matches their worst-case scenarios. The fact is, according to their early predictions, we are already long overdue millions of Covid-19 deaths that have failed to materialise.

But even when Covid-19 deaths are recorded, we have seen how it could be that people are dying with coronavirus rather than dying of it. This concept is easy enough to understand, and it encourages one to take a closer look at the breakdown of deaths across an entire society. The more you follow this rabbit hole down, the more interesting the numbers become. It may be somewhat morbid, but it is nonetheless very important.

The most popular twoarticles on the website of The Spectator over the weekend were by Dr John Lee, a recently retired NHS consultant and professor of pathology. He remarks that ‘’we have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world’’.

How lethal is Covid-19 REALLY? Why massive fatality rates from Italy are MISLEADING

Screen Shot 2020-03-31 at 11.25.42 AM

To check this out, I looked at the British government’s own statistics on total deaths registered weekly across the UK. It shows that in the week ending on the 8th of March 2019, 10,898 people died in total in the UK. This year, in the week ending the 6th of March 2020, the equivalent figure was almost identical: 10,895. Make of that what you will. Statistics are currently available up to March 20, and while there is a lag between the spread of the virus and the resulting deaths, so far only about 1 percent of all mortalities bear any relation to coronavirus, and there is no visible spike. If nothing else, it helps to view the extent of the crisis in proportion – thousands of people die each week, and from the long-term view what we are seeing is not a plague, but a blip.

So when all is said and done, will any additional people die of the coronavirus? And what is meant by extra or additional?

Risk of dying

Understanding this requires a bit of lateral thinking, but it helps to remember that everyone on Earth has a terminal disease: being alive. We all have to go sometime.

Recording exactly how and when we do is a big part of the job of statistician Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter. In a recent blog post, he outlined the concept of background risk. This is obtained by recording all of the people dying in any given year, at any given age. At its most simple, this is the percentage chance a person has of not reaching their next birthday, based solely on their age. Of course, that is not to say that if you are a 40-year-old man you have precisely a 0.2% chance of dying this year – the data are based on averages, and do not apply to individuals.

But nonetheless, across a country or given populations, the averages will be right, and it is possible to predict with great accuracy how many people will die in a given year. In the UK, for example, 600,000 people die annually. But wait a minute! A novel, brand-spanking new coronavirus is terrorising us all. Therefore surely we can expect more people to die this year than would in a normal year? And come year’s end we should be able, with simple arithmetic, to count exactly how many more there were.

In 2009 UK government experts wildly over-hyped dangers of swine flu — is history repeating with Covid-19?

Screen Shot 2020-03-31 at 11.27.15 AM

Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Evidence and Risk Communication at Cambridge University, won’t say exactly what he does think that figure will be. But he does say that if the deaths are towards the lower end of the current estimates, say at around 20,000 in the UK, Covid-19 will end up having ‘’a minimal impact on overall mortality for 2020’’. He told R4 that his findings showed, to his own professed astonishment, that if someone contracts the coronavirus, they’ve got almost exactly the same chance of dying over the ensuing few weeks as they would normally have of dying over the next year, no matter what their age or background health.

And depending on who you ask, that 20,000 figure might still be an overestimate. In fact, Spiegelhalter says that if extra people die it will likely be as a result of the  knock-on effects of the lockdown, such as delayed normal health care, depression and isolation.

American political commentator Candace Owens has been Tweeting consistently about the apparent insignificance of Covid-19 deaths compared to overall trends. She tweeted about this issue in relation to New York City, where meaningless figures are being waved around by the media.

Screen Shot 2020-03-31 at 11.31.30 AM

Final destination

With all of the numbers being bandied about these days by various universities and governments, one would swear that they knew exactly what they were talking about. Make no mistake: this air of certainty is just a front. It is definitely too early to accurately gauge how many – if any – extra people will die because of coronavirus. It will depend on how four key pieces of information intersect.

These are:

  1. How many people will become infected by Covid-19?
  2. How much does Covid-19 increase the risk of death?
  3. Are deaths being properly recorded? Of those people who die having contracted coronavirus, are they dying from the virus, or just with it?
  4. Of those who died, how many had comorbidities that would have killed them this year anyway?

Since all of this began, the mainstream media have focused almost entirely on the first of these points, and stressing with an onslaught of material how important it is to slow the spread. The most extreme possible measures have been implemented to do that. Meanwhile, the three other points could end up comparing Covid-19 pretty much to the common flu. Only careful consideration by governments of all the key factors will result in the best future decisions.

It is hard to believe that when this all blows over, the damage that will have been done by the shutdown measures – to businesses, to civil liberties, to individual lives and, of course, to the global economy – could have been for nothing. Nonetheless, it seems entirely possible based on the present data. Remember above all to not  take the figures the mainstream media throw at you at face value; there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Hospitals in England told to postpone ‘non-urgent’ operations for 3 MONTHS amid coronavirus crisis


NHS England is cancelling all routine surgery from April 15 for a period of at least three months, and discharging all inpatients as a matter of great urgency, to help deal with the Covid-19 outbreak.

The latest measures revealed by health bosses on Tuesday would see hospital patients who are ‘medically fit’ sent home to free up staff and beds as the UK attempts to stem the spread of the deadly disease. 

In a letter sent to health trusts across the country, NHS heads claimed that the novel coronavirus presented the national healthcare system with “arguably the greatest challenge it has faced since its creation.” 


The plan is intended to free up a third of the 100,000 NHS hospital beds in England. The health service is also looking into hiring out private hospitals and their staff to handle the rapid escalation in coronavirus patients and enable urgent operations to go ahead.

The UK authorities announced on Tuesday afternoon that the number of Covid-19 cases had reached 1,950 – up 407 in 24 hours, with deaths now standing at 71. PM Boris Johnson announced new UK plans on Monday to counter the threat, which were ostensibly a series of advisory measures, rather than the more draconian steps taken in mainland Europe.


Coronavirus ‘worst case scenario’ could see 80% of UK population infected – England’s chief medical officer


England’s chief medical officer has warned that coronavirus has the potential to infect 80 percent of the UK population and kill one percent of those who contract the disease, as the government unveils its Covid-19 battle plan.

During a joint-Downing Street press conference on Tuesday where UK PM Boris Johnson announced the publication of the government’s 28-page ‘Coronavirus: action plan’, Professor Chris Whitty told reporters about the “worst case scenario.” 

Vote of no confidence: Almost no UK doctors think NHS can handle coronavirus outbreak, survey finds


Whitty claimed that up to 530,000 British citizens could die from contracting the virus, but stressed the number “is likely to be lower than that and probably a lot lower than that.”

The UK government’s action plan says that if there is an escalating outbreak, up to a fifth of the British workforce could be forced to stay at home, schools may close and elderly people advised to not attend social gatherings.

The document warns that there could be an increase in deaths from coronavirus – particularly among vulnerable and elderly groups – and so local authorities will have to deal with that challenge, which suggests morgue capacity could become an issue in such an event.

It also proposes that businesses could face “short term cash flow issues” as a result of low demand from customers.

Johnson’s administration has warned that police and fire services will only respond to the most serious call-outs if their staff fall ill through coronavirus.

It comes after a survey conducted by the Doctors’ Association UK showed that more than 99 percent of 1,618 NHS medical staff, contrary to the prime minister’s assurances, say that the British healthcare system is not prepared to handle a major outbreak of Covid-19. To date 51 people in the UK have contracted the virus.


UK: Hospitals to Deny Care to "Racist" or "Homophobic" Patients

What could possibly go wrong?

  – FEBRUARY 18, 2020

Patients deemed to be “racist” or “homophobic” will be denied care in NHS Trust hospitals under new rules set to take effect in April.

“Currently, staff can refuse to treat non-critical patients who are verbally aggressive or physically violent towards them,” reports Sky News. “But these protections will extend to any harassment, bullying or discrimination, including homophobic, sexist or racist remarks.”

Police will also be given new powers to prosecute “hate crimes” committed against NHS staff.

What is determined to be “racist” or “homophobic” is anyone’s guess, since many elderly patients will be totally unfamiliar with modern politically correct speech codes and could be deemed to have behaved in a racist or homophobic way even if they didn’t maliciously intend to.


As Jack Montgomery highlights, “In late 2017 an NHS patient who requested a female nurse to carry out a cervical smear complained when the hospital sent a person with “an obviously male appearance… close-cropped hair, a male facial appearance and voice, large number of tattoos and facial stubble” who insisted “My gender is not male. I’m a transsexual.”

The line between critical and non-critcal care is also up for debate. Will refusal to treat a patient because they said something someone deems offensive result in accidental deaths?

This is even worse than China’s social credit score, which hasn’t yet gone so far as to punish people by withdrawing medical treatment if they engage in wrongthink.

First it was deplatforming people from social media websites, then it was deplatforming people from bank accounts and mortgages. Now it’s deplatforming people from hospital treatment. Literally eliminating people’s right to basic health care because of their political or social opinions.

It’s also important to emphasize that these changes are coming in under a supposedly “conservative” government.

Respondents poked fun at the new rules.

“This is going to be hilarious when a boomer is denied his double bypass cause he called someone coloured on Facebook,” remarked one.


“Don’t get sick in the UK if you’ve ever posted “Grooming gang” statistics,” commented another.


Thousands Of Elderly Patients Go Blind In Britain Due To Eye Surgery Rationing

Cropped Image Of Woman Eye


Healthcare rationing is a regular part of the United Kingdom, which has nationalized healthcare in a way Democrats in America want to bring here.

But this rationing leads to consequences. Hundreds of elderly citizens go blind each year while waiting for eye surgeries. The latest report on the issue comes from the Times of London. The outlet reports that the latest survey from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCO) found rationing of cataract surgery continues even after guidance was issued suggesting patients not have the surgery delayed.

“The [National Health Service] has ignored instructions to end cataract treatment rationing in defiance of official guidance two years ago, a survey by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists has found,” the Times reported.

The outlet reported that removing cataracts was one of the most common NHS procedures. More than 400,000 such surgeries are conducted each year. Two years ago, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) stated that patients requiring cataract surgery should not have to wait until they are almost blind to receive treatment, yet that appears to still be the case in 2019.

“Nothing has changed,” Mike Burdon, president of the RCO, told the Times. “We can’t have a situation where Nice is set up to make these decisions and [local health groups] simply say ‘we don’t like the answer’ and deprive the elderly population of the chance of a better quality of life. I’m bitterly disappointed.”

He called cataract surgery “probably the most life-transforming procedure the NHS does.”

Helen Lee, the policy manager for the Royal National Institute of Blind People, stressed the importance of cataract surgery in a statement to the Times:


NHS, naturally, pushed back on concerns. Julie Wood, chief executive of NHS Clinical Commissioners, told the Times that “Nice guidance is not mandatory and clinical commissioners must have the freedom to make clinically led decisions that are in the best interests of both individual patients and their wider local populations.” She added that “The NHS does not have unlimited resources.”

This is just the latest report on the lack of access to important eye surgeries. Last June, the Telegraph reported that patients were going blind while waiting for treatment for glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration. A survey at that time found that up to 22 patients were going blind or partially blind each month waiting for treatment.

The problem was also reported in 2013. At that time, more than four in ten NHS ophthalmologists said they had patients who had gone blind waiting for treatment.

This is what will happen in America if Democrats get their way on “Medicare for all.”

Blog at

Up ↑