Canadian scientist Professor Denis Rancourt is a physicist and statistical analyst. He has been lead scientist on many large projects, with over 100 papers published in peer reviewed scientific journals and has been a peer reviewer on many hundreds of scientific papers. Previously he published frequently on ResearchGate, but after his first research paper on masks was read 400,000 times, it was de-platformed. When he questioned this, ResearchGate cited that “it had too much influence and was contrary to World Health Organisation recommendations”.
Professor Rancourt spoke to Rebel News presenter Drea Humphrey about his research findings relating to the Covid-19 pandemic. He discusses evidence to support an idea that Canada in fact did not experience Covid-19 as a pandemic, but that deaths in the elderly as well as young males were associated with the lockdown response.
Viral diseases transmit best during the winter months. However it is very difficult to assign the cause of death with respiratory viruses, because there are always co-conditions, including bacterial infections and other viruses present at the same time. Epidemiologists know this and therefore they don’t try to assign a single cause of death in these circumstances.
The best approach is to analyse deaths of all causes over time, in order to see the patterns and if they are changing. In both Northern and Southern Hemispheres there is a very clear and established pattern of many more deaths in winter than in summer, which is due to transmission of viral respiratory diseases. The patterns are very regular, with a low trough in summer and high peak over winter. The reason for these patterns is that viruses transmit through aerosol particles, which can only remain stable in cool, dry air.
Adding up all-cause deaths over a period of time, which can be a season, a calendar year or a cycle year (from one summer trough to the next), allows review of the patterns. When Rancourt’s team looked at cycle-year all-cause mortality for Canada, they found no anomaly across the decade from 2010 to 2021. They conclude that a pandemic did not occur.
Viral respiratory pandemics have two defining characteristics, being:
- They occur everywhere, regardless of state or jurisdictional boundaries, due to lack of immunity;
- They cause more excess mortality than that seen in non-pandemic seasons.
In Canada, the opposite of these characteristics is seen for 2020-21. There are not more deaths, the pattern is completely in line with what has been seen over the past decade, with “not even a blip”.
Drea Humphrey asks Rancourt how he would reply to those who say that this is because Canada implemented effective lockdown, social distancing, masking and other measures? He describes why human behaviours bringing a deadly virus exactly into line with the standard mortality patterns across a decade is highly improbable. He also discusses the theory of Occam’s Razor, whereby if there are two theories to explain a phenomenon, the simpler theory is considered the more likely. When there are multiple studies showing that non-pharmaceutical interventions are ineffective against viral respiratory diseases, the simpler theory, that there was no pandemic in Canada, is supported.
Even though Canada’s year-long all-cause mortality didn’t change, patterns changed depending on location. Directly after the pandemic was announced, a very sharp peak of increased deaths occurred in specific hot spots across the globe, which fell as quickly as it rose. Rancourt’s team argue that this is due to the sudden directives of the World Health Organisation, being to lock elderly people into care homes (“that’s the worst thing you could do”). They transferred sick people from hospital to nursing homes and locked them in, which is the exact opposite of what is recommended to avoid epidemics in care homes.
What you should do is detect symptomatic disease, take those people out of the care home, and treat them (isolation of the sick – a basic public health principle – was not followed). Despite the known science of how to avoid epidemics in care homes, the opposite was done, resulting in a huge burst of deaths in care homes, as seen in all-cause mortality. This burst of deaths was much larger in Quebec than any other province, which is not a pandemic-like characteristic, as the virus doesn’t stop at a provincial border.
Following the very sharp peak of deaths of the elderly, induced by the counter-science measures, the summer trough in 2020 dipped lower than would normally be seen. This is known as the “dry tinder” effect.
Looking at age group data, excess deaths in young men up to 44 years old are occurring at higher rates than have occurred in the past decade. These extra deaths continued through the Fall and Winter seasons of 2020/21. They occur mostly in Alberta, and are undetected in Quebec. These patterns show that these deaths are not virus associated, and are associated with the measures applied. Rancourt’s interpretation of this is that the psychological and social impact of restructuring the economy was greater on young men in Alberta. He suggests that the reasons for this may be cultural differences relating to personal identity and stress levels.
In terms of being infected by a viral respiratory disease, the predominant factor after age, [which] makes you most fragile, the other big determining factor is the psychological stress that you experience in your life. And the second most important factor is the degree to which you are socially isolated. People who have less social connectivity die more from viral respiratory diseases. These are major determinants.
So isolating the most fragile people, completely in care homes, locking them into a closed environment where viruses in aerosol particles once suspended in the air, are going to infect everyone, not taking them out when they get sick, isolating and stressing them with interactions such as wearing masks and gloves, is the worst thing you could do. So the care homes in Canada, especially Quebec and Ontario, “were death camps”.
In Canada there is no difference between Winter 2021 and the decade prior. However, there are regional differences, with more death seen in Alberta. Rancourt concludes that this is associated with the conditions people are now experiencing, causing high and persistent levels of chronic stress, which kills people.
They also compared Canada with other countries. Since World War 2, every season has been the same across every country in Europe. Suddenly last year, with the imposition of new and dramatic measures affecting how people live, and making elderly people vulnerable, there are now hot spots. Some countries have far higher death rates, especially in the peak caused by the World Health Organisation recommendations. In France the differences appear between counties, with deaths in Paris and some counties, but not in other counties. This is unheard of in epidemiology for viral respiratory diseases, and so it is clearly caused by differences and aggression of jurisdictional measures.
With access to drug use data, Rancourt’s team observed a drop in antibiotics given to the elderly in France. Those who had bacterial lung infections died. This is the direct impact of applying a medical protocol to only treat Covid. The lack of proper diagnoses and treatments killed people. A lot of data supports that deaths were induced by lockdown measures, from not allowing people to work, to transformed medical protocols and responses.
“They felt they could do anything because they were defining this new disease and they could do experimental treatments, and use ventilators, and all kinds of horrible things. And stop using treatments that they were using before, and have this idea that this was a terrible pandemic and if you wanted to survive it, you had to ignore everything else almost. So they stopped treating for other conditions … There is no doubt that there should be even criminal investigations regarding how this was handled. And also disciplining professionals for not being professional. For following protocols blindly without questioning themselves about the underlying science and if this was really good for their patients. There should be a lot of investigation about how badly this was done, as it resulted in many many deaths that would not have been accelerated and that would not have occurred in those hot spots had they not done these things“.
One thought on “Exposing Errors”
When you are looking at some situation, the first thing to figure out is the game being played. In the case of the CDC and FDA, the game was to make an avenue for pharma–including remdesivir and the covid vaccines.
This isn’t based on wild conspiracy theories, but cold hard facts. Repurposed antivirals were smeared by the government agencies.
1) SAGE and the subgroup SPI-B admitted in official documents to promoting policies that enhanced panic in order to produce compliance. This had an impact on the whole world.
2) The FDA and CDC recommended against early treatment with antivirals by recommending only hospital use in the context of clinical trials.
3) The CDC failed to generate any adequate RCTs of early treatment of covid with antivirals. Games were played to make results look bad for early treatment.
4) The CDC promoted late treatment studies of antivirals as evidence against early treatment. The late treatment studies supposedly were “better” than early treatment studies showing benefit because the late treatment studies were RCTs, even though they were irrelevant to early treatment.
5) Based on a Lancet article that supposedly showed that HCQ was dangerous and actually increased mortality, the FDA withdrew its EUA for HCQ. When that Lancet article was withdrawn, the FDA didn’t revisit restoring the EUA.
All these things taken together show a pattern of deception and corruption at the FDA and CDC. It’s important to gather our facts, but people involved in this plot won’t be persuaded by scientific arguments.
LikeLiked by 1 person