Italy 2020 – The Preposterous Pandemic
In March of 2023 Health Freedom Defense Fund published, Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s Ground Zero – Was There Really a Pandemic?
In order to posit an answer to our title we used a wide lens to look at the operative epidemiological, historical, social and political factors that shaped the COVID phenomenon in Italy.
This piece still stands as one of the most comprehensive examinations of Italy and COVID.
The pressing question in the article’s title has yet to be addressed by officialdom. The ramifications of answering this question in the negative are considerable as the validity of the entire Corona pandemic narrative hinges on the credibility of the events that allegedly took place in Italy and New York City.
If the official media story from either or both of these locations is debunked, we are faced with the possibility of having been through one of the most malevolent deceptions in modern history, with ramifications that will last for decades to come.
We now take a dive deeper into the facts of what did, or did not, occur in Italy by narrowing our lens to examine the minutiae of regional statistics from Italy in Spring/Summer 2020. The evidence revealed in this piece speaks loudly to the likelihood that something other than viral dynamics were involved in creating the apparent Italian health emergency of 2020.
In February of 2020 the Italian Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS) established a surveillance system to collect and review medical records transmitted to the ISS by each Italian Region/Province in order to analyze deaths attributed to COVID-19. This data assessed, “Characteristics of patients who died positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in Italy.”
The ISS began publishing its findings on March 13, 2020 and continued publishing reports up to early 2022. The reports were initially issued on a near weekly basis and less frequently towards the end of 2020 and thru 2021.
The ISS dispatches reported sample sizes from each region, demographics, pre-existing pathologies, hospitalization diagnosis, complications and deaths under the age of 50.
In our analysis we look at the first 20 ISS reports covering the March 13, 2020 – July 9, 2020 time frame.
For the purposes of our study we will focus primarily on the regional and geographical sample sizes, comparisons of those sample sizes and a cursory glance at a few additional details provided in the data sets.
The complexities of how Italian precincts, regions, provinces and autonomous zones are identified is a fascinating historical lesson and an intricate geographical puzzle. Understanding the intricacies of Italian geographical nomenclature is not essential to this study as we stick to the regional descriptors used in the ISS analysis and larger geographical demarcations (Northern, Central, and Southern) that comprise Italy.
One distinct feature of Italy is that it contains 5 Provinicia Autonomes (PA) or autonomous regions.
Three of these autonomous zones are in the North:
1) PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia
2) PA Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol (Trento/Bolzano)
3) PA Valle d’Aosta
while two are in the South:
4) PA Sicily
5) PA Sardinia
The ISS report lists PA Trento and PA Bolzano independently though they are part of the larger region of PA Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol.
Each of Italy’s regions collects taxes, but these five autonomous regions retain more of their local taxes than the other regions (60% instead of the usual 20% – and in Sardinia, they keep 100%). This means that while the regional governments of autonomous regions receive less federal money for services, they are not beholden to federal regulations or mandates in order to fund their services.
This unique characteristic is important to keep in mind as we sift through the ISS data, with particular attention given to the autonomous regions in the north.
The population of Northern Italy is roughly 27 million, Central Italy around 11 million and Southern Italy’s population is around 20 million.
Northern Italy (N) constitutes: PA Valle d’Aosta, Emilia-Romagna, PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Piedmont, Liguria, Lombardy, Veneto, PA Balzano and PA Trento;
Central Italy (C) constitutes: Lazio, Marche, Tuscany, Umbria;
Southern Italy (S) constitutes: Abruzzo, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Molise, PA Sardinia, PA Sicilia.
The number of COVID-classified deaths surveyed in each report are cumulative and representative. COVID deaths were classified “through the death cards” of the deceased. They do not necessarily include all COVID deaths from the time frame covered.
Our compilation is organized by region, followed by a geographical abbreviation, followed by the number of accumulated COVID-classified deaths for each region, followed by the region’s percentage of Italy’s COVID-classified deaths.
At the end of each time period we list the tallied percentages for the three broader geographical areas to use as comparison.
A final note on the data: not all regions are included in some weeks and there are a few minute discrepancies (<0.3%) in the tallied percentages for some weeks. These are artifacts of the ISS reports.
ISS Data:
Lombardy (N) – 762, 75.0%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 146, 14.4%
Veneto (N) – 48, 4.7%
Piedmont (N) – 18, 1.8%
Liguria (N) – 13, 1.3%
Lazio (C) – 9, 0.9%
Puglia (S) – 5, 0.5%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 5, 0.5%
Marche (C) – 3, 0.3%
Tuscany (C) – 3, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 2, 0.2%
PA Bolzano (N) – 1, 0.1%
PA Trento (N) – 1, 0.1%
North (N) – Central (C) – South (S)
N= 97.9%
C= 1.5%
S= 0.7%
The median age of deceased COVID-classified patients was 80.0.
The mean number of pre-existing pathologies observed in this population was 2.7.
The vast majority of COVID-classified deaths are in the North of Italy, with the majority of those coming from two regions. This curiosity does not change significantly for the entirety of the declared public health emergency.
The autonomous region of Valle d’Aosta, which is in Northwestern Italy, does not appear in this early report. Despite being only 120 miles away from the “hot spot” of the Lombardy region there are no reported COVID deaths in the ISS survey for PA Valle d’Aosta in the first three reports.
The three other autonomous zones situated in Northeastern Italy, PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (165 miles to Lombardy), PA Bolzano (100 miles to Lombardy) and PA Trento (74 miles to Lombardy) also appeared to escape the ravages of what was sold as one of the most transmissible and deadly viruses in history.
How did this supposed virus race around the world at lightning speed, travel over 5,000 miles from Wuhan to Lombardy, yet bypass regions (to the west and the east) which were only a short distance from Lombardy?
Lombardy (N) – 1,425, 71.1%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 346, 17.3%
Veneto (N) – 79, 3.9%
Piedmont (N) – 36, 1.8%
Liguria (N) – 23, 1.1%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 21, 1.0%
Puglia (S) – 18, 0.9%
Marche (C) – 17, 0.8%
Lazio (C) – 12, 0.6%
PA Trento (N) – 7, 0.3%
Tuscany (C) – 6, 0.3%
PA Bolzano (N) – 6, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 3, 0.1%
PA Sardinia (S) – 2, 0.1%
Umbria (C) – 1, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 1, 0.1%
Geographic Percentages:
N= 96.8%
C= 1.8%
S= 1.2%
The median age of deceased COVID-classified patients was 80.5. Women who died were older than men (median age: women 83.7 – men 79.5).
Of the 17 COVID-classified patients under the age of 50 that died, all were males with serious pre-existing pathologies (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric diseases, diabetes, obesity).
No meaningful change presents in geographical data – Central and Southern Italy do not seem to be impacted in any meaningful way by any alleged viral pathogen.
Lombardy (N) – 2,175, 68.0%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 524, 16.4%
Veneto (N) – 136 4.3%
Liguria (N) – 90, 2.8%
Piedmont (N) – 69, 2.2%
Marche (C) – 36, 1.1%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 35, 1.1%
Lazio (C) – 31, 1.0%
Puglia (S) – 27, 0.8%
Campania (S) – 17, 0.5%
PA Bolzano (N) – 14, 0.4%
Tuscany (C) – 14, 0.4%
PA Trento (N) – 12, 0.4%
Abruzzo (S) – 7, 0.2%
Umbria (C) – 4, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 3, 0.1%
PA Sicilia (S) – 3, 0.1%
PA Sardinia (S) – 2, 0.1%
Calabria (S) – 1, 0.0%
N= 95.6%
C= 2.6%
S= 1.8%
The median age of deceased COVID-classified patients is 80 years old.
As of March 20 there are 36 COVID-classified deceased patients under the age of 50.
9 of these were under 40, 8 males and 1 female. No clinical information is available for 2 patients under 40 years of age, the other 7 had serious pre-existing diseases (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric diseases, diabetes, obesity).
The COVID attributed death clusters remain in the north and largely stick to the two provinces of Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna.
Lombardy (N) – 4,484, 65.9%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 1,068, 15.7%
Veneto (N) – 301, 4.4%
Piedmont (N) – 194, 2.9%
Liguria (N) – 180, 2.6%
Marche (C) – 97, 1.4%
Lazio (C) – 88, 1.3%
Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 66, 1.0%
Puglia (S) – 61, 0.9%
Tuscany (C) – 59, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N) – 46, 0.7%
PA Trento (N) – 46, 0.7%
Campania (S) – 40, 0.6%
PA Sicilia (S) – 15 0.2%
PA Sardinia (S) – 13, 0.2%
Abruzzo (S) – 12 0.2%
Umbria (C) – 11 0.2%
Molise (S) – 8 0.1%
Calabria (S) – 6 0.1%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 6 0.1%
N= 93%
C= 3.8%
S= 2.4%
PA Valle d’Aosta makes its first appearance in the ISS survey accounting for 0.1% COVID-attributed deaths cataloged to date. The data illustrate that the other autonomous regions in the North were scarcely impacted and only nominal upticks in Covid-attributed deaths occur in either Central or Southern Italy.
Heading into April we see over 90 percent of COVID-attributed deaths remain in the North with the majority of these deaths situated in two regions.
Even as the alleged virus was at the peak of its powers it was unable to put a dent in the mortality rates of Italy’s autonomous regions in the north nor impact Central or Southern Italy.
The mechanics of this “unique viral pathogen” seem to defy all reasonable explanations and textbook epidemiological models.
The following ISS surveys, up until the final data set of our study, are presented without comment:
Lombardy (N) – 7,600, 60.6%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 1,720, 13.7%
Piedmont (N) – 874, 7.0%
Veneto (N) – 547, 4.4%
Liguria(N) – 428, 3.4%
Marche (C) – 209, 1.7%
PA Trento (N) – 173, 1.4%
Tuscany (C) – 163, 1.3%
Lazio (C) – 147, 1.2%
Puglia (S) – 145, 1.2%
PA Bolzano (N) – 126, 1.0%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 125, 1.0%
Campania (S) – 73, 0.6%
PA Sicilia (S) – 50, 0.4%
Umbria (C) – 34, 0.3%
PA Sardinia (S) – 33, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 29, 0.2%
Calabria (S) – 28, 0.2%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 26, 0.2%
Molise (S) – 11, 0.1%
Basilicata (S) – 9, 0.1%
N= 92.7%
C= 4.5%
S= 3.1%
Lombardy (N) – 8,915, 60.0%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 2038, 13.7%
Piedmont (N) – 961, 6.5%
Veneto (N) – 668, 4.5%
Liguria (N) – 460, 3.1%
Marche (C) – 278, 1.9%
Tuscany (C) – 220, 1.5%
PA Trento (N) – 217, 1.5%
Lazio (C) – 209, 1.4%
Puglia (S) 186, 1.3%
PA Bolzano (N) – 163, 1.1%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 151, 1.0%
Campania (S) – 87, 0.6%
PA Sicilia (S) – 67, 0.5%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 56, 0.4%
Umbria (C) – 44, 0.3%
PA Sardinia (S) – 41, 0.3%
Calabria (S) – 40, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 33, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 14, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 12, 0.1%
N= 91.5%
C= 5.1%
S= 3.4%
Lombardy (N) – 9,731, 58.4%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 2,221, 13.3%
Piedmont (N) – 1,210, 7.3%
Veneto (N) – 756, 4.5%
Liguria (N) – 510, 3.1%
Marche (C) – 361, 2.2%
Tuscany (C) – 269, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 255, 1.5%
Lazio (C) – 230, 1.4%
Puglia (S) – 224, 1.3%
PA Bolzano (N) – 184, 1.1%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 172, 1.0%
Campania (S) – 122, 0.7%
PA Sicilia (S) – 105, 0.6%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 89, 0.5%
PA Sardinia (S) – 57, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 50, 0.3%
Calabria (S) – 46, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 33, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 16, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 13, 0.1%
N= 90.7%
C= 5.5%
S= 3.6%
Lombardy (N) – 10,629, 57.0%
Emilia-Romagna (N) – 2,551, 13.7%
Piedmont (N) – 1,462, 7.8%
Veneto (N) – 883, 4.7%
Liguria (N) – 524, 2.8%
Marche(C) – 414, 2.2%
Tuscany (C) – 324, 1.7%
PA Trento (N) – 293, 1.6%
Puglia (S) – 266, 1.4%
Lazio (C) – 254, 1.4%
PA Bolzano (N) – 215, 1.2%
PA Friuli-Venezia Giulia (N) – 197, 1.1%
Campania (S) – 139, 0.7%
PA Sicilia (S) – 122, 0.7%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 121, 0.6%
PA Sardinia (S) – 73, 0.4%
Umbria (C) – 56, 0.3%
Calabria (S) – 50, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 35, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 18, 0,1%
Molise (S)- 15, 0.1%
N= 90.5%
C= 5.6%
S= 3.9%
Lombardy (N) – 11,384, 56.9%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 2,775, 13.9%
Piedmont(N) – 1,523, 7.6%
Veneto (N) – 982, 4.9%
Liguria (N) – 531, 2.7%
Marche (C) – 427, 2.1%
Tuscany (C) – 375, 1.9%
PA Trento (N) – 318, 1.6%
Puglia (S) – 294, 1.5%
Lazio (C) – 259, 1.3%
PA Bolzano (N) – 228, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 209, 1.0%
Campania (S) – 145, 0.7%
PA Sicilia (S) – 144, 0.7%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 137, 0.7%
PA Sardinia (S) – 82, 0.4%
Umbria (C) – 58, 0.3%
Calabria (S) – 51, 0.3%
Abruzzo (S) – 37, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 21, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 16, 0.1%
N= 90.4%
C= 5.6%
S= 4.0%
Lombardy (N) – 12,061, 56.0%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 3,009, 14.0%
Piedmont (N) – 1,727, 8.0%
Veneto (N) – 1,114, 5.2%
Liguria (N) – 531, 2.5%
Marche (C) – 490, 2.3%
Tuscany (C) – 446, 2.1%
PA Trento (N) – 360, 1.7%
Puglia (S) – 322, 1.5%
Lazio (C) – 271, 1.3%
PA Bolzano (N) – 249, 1.2%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 220, 1.0%
Campania (S) – 162, 0.8%
PA Sicilia (S) – 157, 0.7%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 146, 0.7%
PA Sardinia (S) – 88, 0.4%
Umbria (C) – 63, 0.3%
Calabria (S) – 52, 0.2%
Abruzzo (S) – 42, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 23, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 18, 0.1%
N= 90.3%
C= 6.0%
S= 4.0%
Lombardy (N) – 13,685, 53.8%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 3,458, 13.6%
Piedmont (N) – 2,095, 8.2%
Veneto (N) – 1,445, 5.7%
Liguria (N) – 678, 2.7%
Tuscany (C) – 655, 2.6%
Marche (C) – 598, 2.3%
PA Trento (N) – 412, 1.6%
Puglia (S) – 410, 1.6%
Lazio (C) – 397, 1.6%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 279, 1.1%
PA Bolzano (N) – 274, 1.1%
Campania (S) – 245, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 217, 0.9%
Abruzzo (S) – 157, 0.6%
PA Valle d’Aosta (S) – 137, 0.5%
PA Sardinia (S) – 120, 0.5%
Calabria (S) – 74, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 71, 0.3%
Basilicata (S) – 24, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 21, 0.1%
N= 87.8%
C= 6.8%
S= 5.6%
Lombardy (N) – 14,611, 52.3%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 3,737, 13.4%
Piedmont (N) – 2,194, 7.8%
Veneto (N) – 1,596, 5.7%
Liguria (N) – 1,073, 3.8%
Tuscany (C) – 845, 3.0%
Marche (C) – 629, 2.3%
Lazio (C) – 451, 1.6%
Puglia (S) – 441, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 438, 1.6%
Campania (S) – 312, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 312, 1.1%
Abruzzo (S) – 309, 1.1%
PA Bolzano (N) – 288, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 257, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 139, 0.5%
PA Sardinia (S) – 126, 0.5%
Calabria (S) – 79, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 71, 0.3%
Basilicata (S) – 24, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 23, 0.1%
N= 87.2%
C= 7.2%
S= 5.7%
Lombardy (N) – 15,185, 51.1%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 3,905, 13.2%
Piedmont (N) – 2,196, 7.4%
Veneto (N) – 1746, 5.9%
Liguria (N) – 1,277, 4.3%
Tuscany (C) – 928, 3.1%
Marches (C) – 905, 3.0%
Lazio (C) – 572, 1.9%
Puglia (S) – 461, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 449, 1.5%
Abruzzo (S) – 366, 1.2%
Campania (S) – 346, 1.2%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 323, 1.1%
PA Bolzano (N) – 291, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 266, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 143, 0.5%
PA Sardinia (S) – 127, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 84, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 74, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 26, 0.1%
N= 86.0%
C= 8.2%
S= 5.7%
Lombardy (N) – 15,662, 50.4%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4,008, 12.9%
Piedmont (N) – 2,616, 8.4%
Veneto (N) – 1,842, 5.9%
Liguria (N) – 1,382, 4.4%
Tuscany (C) – 991, 3.2%
Marche (C) – 907, 2.9%
Lazio (C) – 631, 2.0%
Puglia (S) – 478, 1.5%
PA Trento (N) – 459, 1.5%
Abruzzo (S) – 379, 1.2%
Campania (S) – 354, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 327, 1.1%
PA Bolzano (N) – 291, 0.9%
PA Sicilia (S) – 281, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 145, 0.5%
PA Sardinia (S) – 128, 0.4%
Calabria (S) 91, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 74, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 28, 0.1%
N= 86.0%
C= 8.3%
S= 5.5%
Lombardy (N) – 15,954, 50.1%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4,083, 12.8%
Piedmont (N) – 2,711, 8.5%
Veneto (N) – 1,899, 6.0%
Liguria (N) – 1,453, 4.6%
Tuscany (C) – 1,020, 3.2%
Marche (C) – 925, 2.9%
Lazio (C) – 686, 2.2%
Puglia (S) – 496, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 465, 1.5%
Abruzzo (S) – 398, 1.2%
Campania (S) – 361, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 333, 1.0%
PA Bolzano (N) – 291, 0.9%
PA Sicilia (S) – 286, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 143, 0.4%
PA Sardinia (S) – 131, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 91, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 75, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 28, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 22, 0.1%
N= 84.8%
C= 8.5%
S= 5.7%
Lombardy (N) – 16,172, 49.8%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4,147, 12.8%
Piedmont (N) – 2,770, 8.5%
Veneto (N) – 1,934, 6.0%
Liguria (N) – 1,503, 4.6%
Tuscany (C) – 1,060, 3.3%
Marche (C) – 929, 2.9%
Lazio (C) – 741, 2.3%
Puglia (S) – 514, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 467, 1.4%
Abruzzo (S) – 431, 1.3%
Campania (S) – 361, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 337, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 293, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N) – 292, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 143, 0.4%
PA Sardinia (S) – 132, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 94, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 76, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 29, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 23, 0.1%
N= 85.4%
C= 8.7%
S= 5.8%
Lombardy (N) – 16,349, 49.6%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4,192, 12.7%
Piedmont (N) – 2,846, 8.6%
Veneto (N) – 1,964, 6.0%
Liguria (N) – 1,547, 4.7%
Tuscany (C) – 1,084, 3.3%
Marche (C) – 940, 2.9%
Lazio (C) – 772, 2.3%
Puglia (S) – 530, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 468, 1.4%
Abruzzo (S) – 453, 1.4%
Campania (S) – 365, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 341, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 295, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N) – 293, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 144, 0.4%
PA Sardinia (S) – 131, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 96, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 76, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 29, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 23, 0.1%
N= 85.3%
C= 5.9%
S= 8.7%
Lombardy (N) – 16,480, 49.5%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4,215, 12.7%
Piedmont (N) – 2,906, 8.7%
Veneto (N) – 1,994, 6.0%
Liguria (N) – 1,582, 4.7%
Tuscany (C) – 1,092, 3.3%
Marche (C) – 958, 2.9%
Lazio (C) – 806, 2.4%
Puglia (S) – 538, 1.6%
PA Trento (N) – 469, 1.4%
Abruzzo (S) – 457, 1.4%
Campania (S) – 372, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 343, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 303, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N) – 292, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 144, 0.4%
PA Sardinia (S) – 132, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 97, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 77, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 29, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 23, 0.1%
N= 85.3%
C= 8.8%
S= 5.9%
Lombardy (N) – 16,586, 49.5%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4,245, 12.7%
Piedmont (N) – 2,975, 8.9%
Veneto (N) – 2,006, 6.0%
Liguria (N) – 1,608, 4.8%
Tuscany (C) – 1,103, 3.3%
Marche (C) – 959, 2.9%
Lazio (C) – 808, 2.4%
Puglia (S) – 543, 1.6%
Abruzzo (S) – 461, 1.4%
PA Trento (N) – 405, 1.2%
Campania (S) – 385, 1.1%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 346, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 305, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N) – 292, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 146, 0.4%
PA Sardinia (S) – 132, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 97, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 78, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 29, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 23, 0.1%
N= 85.4%
C= 8.8%
S= 5.8%
Lombardia (N) – 16740, 49.2%
Emilia Romagna (N) – 4269, 12.5%
Piemonte (N) – 3079, 9.0%
Veneto (N) – 2037, 6.0%
Liguria (N) – 1657, 4.9%
Toscana (C) – 1123, 3.3%
Marche (C) – 961, 2.8%
Lazio (C) – 845, 2.5%
Puglia (S) – 546, 1.6%
Abruzzo (S) – 464, 1.4%
Campania (S) -446, 1.3%
PA Trento (N) – 405, 1.2%
PA Friuli Venezia Giulia (N) – 347, 1.0%
PA Sicilia (S) – 306, 0.9%
PA Bolzano (N) – 292, 0.9%
PA Valle d’Aosta (N) – 146, 0.4%
PA Sardinia (S) – 134, 0.4%
Calabria (S) – 97, 0.3%
Umbria (C) – 80, 0.2%
Basilicata (S) – 29, 0.1%
Molise (S) – 23, 0.1%
N= 85.1%
C= 8.8%
S= 6.1%
Our final data set shows the median age of deceased COVID-attributed patients is 82 years of age, an increase of 2 years from the initial ISS report.
As of July 9 2020, 385 of the 34,026 deceased alleged SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were under the age of 50 years.
86 of these were under the age of 40 years, 56 men and 30 women.
Of these 86 patients under 40 years of age there was no clinical information available for 8 of them; 64 had serious pre-existing conditions (cardiovascular, renal, psychiatric diseases, diabetes, obesity) and 14 had undiagnosed major pathologies.
In short, every patient under 40 years old who had clinical records, displayed major and/or multiple pre-existing pathologies.
Even as the ages and pre-existing pathologies of COVID-attributed deaths are important bits of evidence which refute certain aspects of the “deadly coronavirus” story, the most incriminating pieces of evidence are the geographical anomalies observed in the data above.
How is it that massive clusters of alleged COVID deaths are situated alongside neighboring locales which experienced so few COVID deaths?
One theory has suggested Chinese migrant workers from the garment industry brought “the virus” to Lombardy. This hypothesis falls apart when noted that Tuscany, in Central Italy, has the largest concentration of Chinese people in Italy.
How could these regions involve the same “spreading” virus and have such dramatically different outcomes?
The nominal upticks that did occur in Central and Southern Italy took place in late Spring and early Summer, a time in which viruses weaken or burn out according to all of epidemiological history.
Central and Southern Italy didn’t seem to be included in the COVID death march. How is this possible?
What was it about Italy’s autonomous regions that protected them from the ravages of this purported pathogen?
None of this makes sense. If this heavily advertised virus was as transmissible and deadly as the world was told the data wouldn’t look like this. Of the many contentious issues surrounding viruses, what’s not up for debate is that viruses are not subject to borders or geographical boundaries.
One astute observer suggested that part of the regional discrepancies might be explained by what went on inside hospitals.
Another concluded, “…completely different places with similar population characteristics [that] experienced completely different mortality outcomes…differences could not be explained by viral dynamics. Something else was at work…”
Whatever combination of factors came into play, attributing the events that befell Italy in Spring 2020 to a supposed viral pathogen, unique or otherwise, defies all logic and reason.
A full scale international inquiry should be launched immediately. Answers are needed.
