CV #61(B): Bonnie Henry Claimed In December All But 2 B.C. Deaths Were In LTC Homes

This is revisiting a press conference from 2 months ago. BCPHO Bonnie Henry says that 585 out of 587 people, (which is all but 2), died in long term care homes.

FOLLOW UP: while this is what she claimed, the B.C. Governments own data shows this to be untrue. A few dozen people under the age of 60 had died. It’s not clear if this was intentional deception, or a screw up in the reporting. Also, if she was shading the truth, what is her motivation? But regardless of the reasons, Bonnie Henry and her associates have a lot to answer for.

1. Full Video Includes Bonnie’s Claims

Pardon the quality of the first video. Resolution had to be sacrificed in order to fit the entire press conference on the page. Included is the YouTube account where it came from.

This is from the December 10, 2020 press conference featuring BC Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie Henry, and the BC Health Minister, Adrian Dix. The relevant part is from 1:30 to 2:15, for those who don’t want to watch the entire thing. And while the vast majority of deaths were seniors, it was more than 2.

What qualifies Dix to be Health Minister? Perhaps it’s his educational background, which consists of going to university for political science and history. Seriously, they couldn’t have found someone with a medical or scientific background?

One possible explanation (just a theory), is that by making the long term care homes look worse than they are, it would give the NDP an excuse to get rid of the privately run ones. Another option would be to help cover up other failures elsewhere.

2. Important Links

December 10 Henry/Dix Press Conference
BC CDC Covid-19 Case Definition
Health Canada Covid-19 Case Definition
BC College Of Physicians And Surgeons
BC CDC Admits Unknown Error In RT-PCR Test

3. More Deception By Bonnie Henry/Adrian Dix

It’s disturbing that Bonnie Henry is allowed to keep forcing people to stop socializing and gathering. This comes despite her repeated remarks that “there’s no science” behind any of this. (This video clip was released by TCN TV). But as bad as this is, it gets considerably worse.

Confirmed case
A person with laboratory confirmation of infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 performed at a community, hospital or reference laboratory (NML or a provincial public health laboratory) running a validated assay. This consists of detection of at least one specific gene target by a NAAT assay (e.g. real-time PCR or nucleic acid sequencing).

The BC Centre for Disease Control admits that it is not testing for a virus, but instead, for a single gene. This completely flies in the face of what the public is told, specifically that these RT-PCR tests are looking for a virus. Health Canada has the same standard: locating a single gene is enough to declare someone a “confirmed case”.

The method for classifying “Covid deaths” is extremely sketchy. The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons – in compliance with World Health Organization dictates, says to: “COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for all decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.” There’s no requirement that cause be proven.

The NAT has a high analytical sensitivity (i.e., it works well at detecting the virus when the virus is present). The NAT can potentially detect as few as 10-100 copies of viral RNA per mL in a respiratory sample. Note that this is not the same as clinical sensitivity of NAT for detection of COVID-19 infection, which is unknown at this time.

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test? A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia. Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

The BC Centre for Disease Control admits it actually has no idea the accuracy of the RT-PCR tests. They claim that the test works, but with the HUGE caveat that it cannot tell the difference between having the material in their body, and actually being infectious. In fact, there is no basis for the 30% error estimate, other than being a “commonly quoted statistic”. In reality, the BC CDC has no idea what the error rates are, or if the test even works.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

One thing Bonnie Henry would probably like people to forget about was that she was an expert witness. This was the “vaccinate or mask” (VOM) policy that Sault Area Hospital tried to impose on employees. This was the labour arbitration hearing of Sault Area Hospital and Ontario Nurses’ Association, 2015 CanLII 55643 (ON LA). She testified there was little evidence to support such a policy — either of masks or vaccinations.

Has the science really changed, in order to get her saying new things? Or has the political agenda she supports changed?

4. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. Many lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, obscuring the vile agenda called the GREAT RESET. The Gates Foundation finances: the WHO, the US CDC, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, the BBC, and individual pharmaceutical companies. The International Health Regulations are legally binding. The Postmedia empire and the “independent” media are paid off, as are the fact-checkers. The virus was never isolated, PCR tests are a fraud, as are forced masks, social bubbles, and 2m distancing.