Mass casualty events inexplicable by viral spread: United Kingdom, Lombardy (Italy), and New York City
September 2023 presentation to The Israeli Public Emergency Council for the Covid19 Crisis (PECC)
Two years ago, in September 2023, we presented to The Israeli Public Emergency Council for the Covid-19 Crisis (PECC) and made data-driven arguments against the idea that a spreading virus caused the mass-casualty events in the UK, Lombardy, and New York City. We also raised the possibility of data fraud in New York (which Jessica had already, by this time, put forward on Substack).
Since this presentation, we have gathered, analyzed, and reported on additional anomalies signaling data fraud — and have argued that the Bergamo event also reflects distortions in magnitude, timing, or both.
Having missed the chance to share this presentation previously, we do so now to
document what our evidence, reasoning, and questions were “back then,”
urge others to recognize that these mass-death events are not what the WHO and its member states claim they were,
convey the fundamental need for the all-cause death curves to be substantiated via releasing death records to the public
Jonathan began doubting the ‘novel virus from Wuhan’ narrative when mortality patterns in the UK and Italy failed to match expectations for a naturally spreading pathogen.
Jessica came across Jonathan’s Lombardy analysis in September 2022, thanks to a tip from another analyst, while pursuing her own questions about the New York City event.
We remain dissatisfied with both official and ‘permitted dissent’ explanations.
The outline beneath the video reflects our thinking at the time. We presented similar arguments in a March 2024 IPAK-EDU webinar, which we regard as a more updated version of this talk.
Created with audio from presentation using Google NotebookLM Studio and ChatGPT5.
I. Core Hypothesis
The mass-casualty event in New York City is inexplicable by viral spread alone. Initial doubts about the “novel deadly virus from Wuhan” narrative arose because death patterns in the UK and Italy did not resemble what would be expected from a naturally spreading pathogen.
II. Challenging the Narrative: UK and Northern Italy
All-Cause Excess Mortality vs. COVID Labels: Mortality data should be analyzed through the lens of excess all-cause deaths, not official “COVID deaths.” Classification as COVID was inconsistent and often included cases such as terminally ill patients or accident victims who had tested positive weeks prior. If a supposed pandemic leaves no durable footprint in all-cause mortality, the claim of a novel deadly virus is undermined.
Synchronized UK Deaths: In April 2020, all UK regions experienced excess mortality peaks at nearly identical times. Daily hospital data also showed synchronous waves across regions, with deaths peaking on the exact same date, April 8. Such synchronicity is highly unusual for a spreading contagion.
Northern Italy (Lombardy & Bergamo):
Regional mortality curves in Lombardy displayed extraordinary synchronicity, with sharp peaks and simultaneous declines.
Bergamo reported excess deaths up to 9–10 times the normal rate—an anomaly given the infection fatality rate was estimated to be similar to that of seasonal influenza.
A comparison is drawn to the 2003 French heatwave, where excess mortality was driven by neglect, especially of elderly populations. Similar neglect, such as abandonment in care homes, may explain aspects of 2020’s spikes.
Evidence also shows that SARS-CoV-2 was widespread in Lombardy in February 2020, yet there was no excess mortality until March — precisely when emergency measures were declared.
Municipal-level data showed no early clustering. By May, excess deaths subsided everywhere simultaneously. In a true epidemic, one would expect a staggered burn-out rather than uniform decline.
III. The New York City Mass Casualty Event
The Narrative: New York was portrayed globally as a warning of uncontrolled spread. The official story claimed that an unusually deadly virus struck suddenly, overwhelming hospitals, while errors in treatment taught the rest of the world how to respond.
Scale and Timing: Roughly 38,000 deaths occurred over 11 weeks—a period that would normally see 11,000 deaths. Most of the excess deaths (27,000) occurred in a concentrated 20-day window. The pace resembled a bomb explosion: a sudden surge followed by a rapid disappearance of excess mortality. A virus does not behave like a bomb.
Younger-Age Mortality Outlier: Unlike Italy or China, where deaths were overwhelmingly in the elderly, New York saw simultaneous spikes in age groups 25–54. The percentage increase in under-70 deaths equaled that of over-70 deaths—an extraordinary anomaly. Hospital inpatient deaths among adults under 60 were overwhelmingly attributed to COVID, contradicting expectations for viral risk by age.
Hospitals vs. Nursing Homes: While nursing homes played a role, most excess deaths occurred in hospitals. The timing of deaths does not support the narrative of spread from care facilities into hospitals. Emergency room deaths did not rise first, and discharges to nursing homes dropped sharply—suggesting many residents brought into hospitals never left.
Hospital Occupancy: Contrary to media depictions of chaos, emergency department visits fell by 60% and occupancy dropped, even at Elmhurst—the so-called “epicenter of the epicenter.” Ambulance dispatches also fell. Deaths occurred in hospitals, but not in the context of overwhelming intake.
Treatment Protocols and Ethical Guidance: Existing ventilator allocation plans and international guidance promoted early intubation. Official recommendations discouraged CPR and non-invasive ventilation. These practices, justified as infection-control measures, likely contributed to excess mortality. Healthcare workers were pressured to follow directives under extreme fear.
Deaths at Home and EMS Protocols: Emergency medical services changed protocols in late March, reducing responses to cardiac arrests, limiting resuscitation, and avoiding hospital transfers. Heart-related deaths at home spiked immediately after, then dropped once orders were rescinded in late April. Reported “COVID deaths at home” followed the same trajectory.
Fraud and Data Manipulation Possibilities:
Death certificates in NYC are not publicly available, limiting verification. Only ~4% of the alleged 38,000 deaths have been identified by name.
A sudden data “dump” of 11,000 death certificates in three days is inconsistent with normal processing.
Thousands of “probable COVID deaths” were added mid-April without transparent justification.
Financial incentives for hospitals ($40,000+ for ventilated COVID cases, $9,000 funeral benefits for families) created pressures to classify deaths as COVID.
Jurisdictional confusion, double-counting, and postdated certificates may also have inflated totals.
IV. Discussion and Unanswered Questions
The unique collapse of younger patients in certain NYC hospitals defies expectations for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests the possibility of localized triggers or interventions.
Comparisons to Chicago show a more gradual, natural pattern, despite earlier reported cases.
Eyewitness reports of patients being intubated while relatively stable raise concerns about harmful protocols.
The lack of transparent accounting for bodies (denials of FEMA morgue trucks, limited Hart Island burials, missing certificates) remains unexplained.
Racial disparities in mortality are better explained by differential hospitalization patterns than by viral behavior.
Later mortality waves (e.g., Omicron) were negligible compared to Spring 2020, reinforcing the anomalous character of the initial event.
The promotion of “approved whistleblowers” in mainstream outlets raises questions of narrative management.
The overall evidence strongly suggests that the mass-death events of 2020 cannot be adequately explained by viral spread. Data anomalies, policy choices, medical practices, and opaque reporting mechanisms point toward other causes that require investigation.
 | A guest post by
|
We begin with sick or dead people. How we explain why they got sick or died cannot rest on a pre-assumption of a metaphor of something called {virus} {spread}. If we accept the explanation within the very paradigm where the events took place, we reinforce the set of virus>disease, which already presuppose a vaccine and the practice of immunization as the pre-conditions for make both virus and disease as operative concepts to launch a political event of a pandemic.
Even if we assumed that viruses were a thing, heterogeneity of physical populations and environmental conditions cannot physically produce one and the same effect of clinical illness as they are encoded then in morbidity and mortality. There cannot be a pandemic as a physical event even for that one reason.