3 min video
The scamās falling apart. And - as I know from direct vox pop conversations - more and more of the grass-roots are recovering from Terror Derangement Syndrome, and becoming sceptical - and increasingly angry. Itās probably the utter lack of bodies piling up in the street, or anywhere, thatās inducing people to stop reacting to the constant whore-cries of: āWolf! Wolf!ā Could be quite a hot Summerā¦
1 Like
Of course I hope youāre right (and Iām wrong), but ā¦
Remember that we might be living in an echo chamber of covid-skeptic voices, so it only appears that resistance is growing.
Always a risk, R. But the vox-pop speakers of whom I spoke are specifically working people who donāt spend much time in any online echo chambers. Iām getting a clear impression that dissent is spreading quietly through a lot of what used to be called working-class people. Hope to god thatās right.
1 Like
Hmm. One America News is not a reliable sourceā¦ If you have a link to the actual CDC report Iād like to read it, otherwise this feels like the same kind of false reporting that sprung up last year. It was false that time tooā¦
I hope to God youĀ“re right RG, otherwise we are screwed! I can report another small āwinā, my doctor offered me the jab and I refused, and she said I was quite right, she had bad reactions to it and has advised her children not to have the jab.
3 Likes
Thereās some substance to this CDC malfeasance story in Mercolaās newsletter today.
What I like about Dr Mercolaās communications is that they often appear with a choice of formats - a key player on interview, and Mercolaās incisive written summery of the substance, which is always well organized, detailed and referenced. Iām not au fait with this important issue but this is the most substantial treatment of the topic Iāve seen - the substance has been used in Federal court cases.
Thereās at least one Mercola newsletter a week. If you feel you need the evidence behind the stories Mercolaās is the sign-up Iād recommend most
(I think you can sign up here Create an Account)
From Mercolaās story:
CDC Violated Law to Inflate COVID Cases and Fatalities
- Dr. Henry Ealy and his team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020, quickly realizing the agency was vastly exaggerating fatalities
- Over-reporting of fatalities was enabled by a March 2020 change in how cause of death is reported on death certificates. Rather than listing COVID-19 as a contributing cause in cases where people died from other underlying conditions, it was to be listed as the primary cause
- As of August 23, 2020, the CDC reported 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19. Had the long-standing, original guidelines for death reporting been used, there would have only been 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19
- The CDC violated federal law, as the Paperwork Reduction Act requires data collection and publication to be overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. Proposed changes must be published in the Federal Register and be open to public comment. None of these transparency rules were followed
Mercola continues with an interview with Dr Henry Ealy, a key part in this story.
āIn this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. Henele, a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute,1 reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.
ā¦
As he points out, heās an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper2 in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled, āCOVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,ā which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.ā
At this point I chose to branch to the documents, clicking on the little reference (no 2). If you havenāt signed up you probably canāt see the interview with Dr Ealy, but there is also a transcript that may be accessible
Ref 2 takes us to an article by one of the Ealy team, Michael McEvoy which specifies the legal faults in the counting process and hastily drafted rules. At the center of this is a peer-reviewed study āCOVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospectiveā.
This study is at
https://jdfor2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/adf864_165a103206974fdbb14ada6bf8af1541.pdf.
The article describes the use of the study (which accuses the CDC of breaches of Federal Law) in court and had links to further developments of this issue.
I think the article can be read without subscribing but Iāve pasted it below to keep it all together.
I havenāt read it all but I just wanted to put the substance here.
ED
(Article below)
COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data
You are here:
- Home
- Uncategorized
- COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Lawā¦
Author: Michael McEvoy
On October 12, 2020, me and a team of independent researchers published a peer reviewed study titled: āCOVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospectiveā. The study was published in the journal āScience, Public Health Policy & The Lawā (the full study can be read at this link). Our study has since been used as a key exhibit in several lawsuits filed in the U.S.
The major points from our study are:
- The CDC violated multiple federal laws when it decided to unilaterally change fatality-reporting guidelines, which enabled COVID-19 to be listed as a primary cause of death. These federal laws include violations of the PRA (paperwork reduction act), the IQA (information quality act), and the associated 44 U.S.C.
- As a result of these new and illegally-created fatality-reporting guidelines, all fatality data for COVID-19 was permanently corrupted.
We viewed our study as the major smoking gun of government corruption and illegality for COVID-19 data reporting. After our study was published, our team sent hard copies, and email copies to every U.S. Attorney in the United States. Unfortunately, no U.S. Attorney responded to us. However, since the time of publication, our study has been used as key evidence in at least 5 separate lawsuits in the U.S. Recently, the attorneys in a federal court case (Beckman Vs. HHS) has used our identical legal arguments against the HHS and CDC.
Furthermore, our lead author, Dr. Henele Ealy has recently submitted expert testimony to 3 counties in the State of Oregon, regarding COVID-19 data and statistics from the state of Oregon. As of this date, in 2/3 instances, the counties passed resolutions that enabled businesses to remain open.
What is the IQA and Why Is It Relevant for COVID-19 & The CDC?
The Information Quality Act (IQA) was enacted by Congress in December of 2000. It is an essential rulebook with which all U.S. Federal agencies must be in compliance. Upon enactment of the IQA, the law required the OMB (office of management of budget) to create procedural guidelines for how all federal agencies must collect and disseminate data (including statistical data) from the public. For 21 years, the IQA has been readily implemented as a series of checks and balances between federal agencies who collect and disseminate data and statistics from the public, and the executive branchās oversight.
ALL federal agencies within the United States (including the CDC) are required to submit notification to the U.S. Federal Register when that agency proposes to make any changes to data collection. A review of the U.S. Federal Register enables any member of the public to view all entries, their review processes and decisions.
On March 24th, 2020, the CDC decided to unilaterally change fatality-reporting guidelines exclusively and preferentially for COVID-19, when that agency issued āCOVID-19 Alert No. 2ā² to all physicians, medical examiners and coroners. This change in fatality reporting was a sudden divergence from the manner in which fatality reporting had been conducted for the past 17 years.
Moreover, the adoption of new fatality-reporting guidelines by the CDC occurred without notification to the U.S. Federal Register. When a federal agency submits a request for their proposed data collection changes to the U.S. Federal Register, this triggers a notification to the director of the OMB (who has direct oversight over the federal agencyās proposal, and the implementation of IQA procedural law). As a result of this process of notifying the OMB, a public review process is opened, in which the public is able to engage in free discourse, debate and discussion. The ultimate decision of data collection adoption or rejection results from these discourses, and the OMB has the final call. This never happened.
IQA procedural law exists, explicitly to prevent unilateral decision making by federal agencies. Data being collected, analyzed, and published by any federal agency is required to meet the highest standards for accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity as defined by the PRA, IQA, as well as additional guidelines issued by the OMB. The IQA is an important ācheck and balanceā of power between a federal agency such as the CDC, with the OMB, whose office is within the executive branch of government. In the case of āCOVID Alert No. 2ā, this never occurred. The CDC went rogue. The IQA, and 44 U.S.C were blatantly violated. The OMB and the public was kept out of any of these very important decisions.
As a consequence of these federal law violations by the CDC, new fatality reporting guidelines were issued that instructed physicians, coroners and medical examiners to preferentially list COVID-19 as a primary cause of death, regardless if any preexisting comorbid diseases had been present. Compared to the previous guidelines, which were in effect for at least the past 17 years (2003 CDC Medical Examinerās and Coronerās Handbook on Death Registration), the new guidelines are very different.
It is critical to examine this closely, because nearly 90% of COVID-attributed fatalities had preexisting medical conditions. The previous fatality-reporting guidelines would have instructed that the preexisting medical condition would more than likely be listed as the primary cause of death. In the case of influenza, this would most likely be listed as a contributing factor, leading to death, and not the primary cause of death.
The illegally created fatality-reporting guidelines by the CDC changed that. Itās now well understand that significant financial incentives existed, which incentivized COVID-19 diagnosis. Indeed, corruption becomes contagion if it is not properly contained by a functioning, democratic process.
Key points:
- The newly adopted fatality-reporting guidelines on March 24, 2020 enabled COVID-19 to be listed as a primary cause of death on death certificates, regardless of preexisting comorbidities. This is not how fatality reporting was previously conducted.
- The newly adopted fatality-reporting guidelines were illegally created by the CDC. In the issuance of fatality-reporting guidelines to physicians, medical examiners and coroners, the CDC violated U.S. Federal Law, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3506, and effectively bypassed the IQA, and the oversight of the OMB.
The result of the unilateral and illegal actions of the CDC has resulted in permanent corruption of all COVID-19 fatality-reporting in the U.S. Moreover, the CDCās rogue actions to erect new fatality-reporting guidelines has removed any remaining public trust in this agency.
Beckman Vs. HHS
On December 21st, 2020 a federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Beckman Vs. HHS, used these exact legal arguments in a landmark case against U.S. Federal Agencies. You can read more about this lawsuit, in the press release issued by the lead attorneys Thomas Renz and Ana Garner.
If successful, this lawsuit will open the floodgates of litigation against the CDC and its parent agency, HHS.
Useful Links & More
- Special thanks to Minnesota Senator Dr. Scott Jensen, MD. Dr. Jensen gave an excellent interview in April 2020, that tipped us off on national fatality-reporting guidelines being changed. As a physician with more than 30 years of experience, which includes filling out death certificates, Dr. Jensen was alarmed at the new CDC guidelines for fatality reporting. This interview between Dr. Jensen and Dr. Henele is an informative and engaging discussion.
- Interview Discussion Between Our Lead Author Dr. Henele & Dr. Jack-Lyons Weiler Discussing the paper, āCOVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospectiveā
- Link to our Published Study: āCOVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospectiveā
- Link to Dr. Heneleās presentation to Oregon County BOC Meetings: 01/04/21 ā Curry County Board of Commissioners Workshop with Dr. Ealy presenting.Go to 5:22:15 in the video.
3 Likes
Joe is proving a goldmine of quality dissident information, isnāt he? I get his - constant! 
- mailouts too, and thereās always something good in them.
Thanks ED for yet another excellent post.
Hi folks,
Following on from the analysis of US investigators into the use of fraudulent definitions I thought ( for a laugh!!) Iād revisit the UK rules.
I concluded that unlike the US fraud of manipulating what goes on death certificates which would then determine numbers, the UK just side-stepped the written words on a certificate and went straight for the jugular ā what goes into the data ā the phrase āRubbish in Rubbish outā comes to mind!
The importance of testing in relation to the reporting of deaths due to Covid19
Public Health England (PHE) reporting of COVID-19 deaths
- āThe PHE data series is not designed to provide definitive information on the causal role of COVID-19 in relation to individual deathsā
.
ā4.6
Limitations of the PHE data series
The PHE data series does not include deaths in people where COVID-19 is suspected
but not confirmed by testing (SARS-CoV-2 PCR either negative or not done).
Furthermore, the PHE data series does not report cause of death, and as such represents deaths in people with COVID-19 and not necessarily caused by COVID-19.ā
So far I have been focused only on COVDI-19 deaths and I have ignored tests on the basis that they are totally misleading and unreliable whether PCR or LF.
But what this means is that I have misunderstood a crucial element in the data on deaths in the UK. From the above statements by PHE it is clear that deaths are recorded as COVID-19 deaths whenever a test has confirmed the presence of the virus irrespective of the actual cause of death. So if no tests are done the PHE data cannot include the deaths as COVID-19 deaths, and the corollary is true ā if everyone has a positive test within 60 days of death they become COVID-19 deaths no matter what is written on the death certificate. The death data is basically the same number as the case data with only one difference- the testee has died within 60 days of the test or after 60 days where the death certificate just mentions COVID.
So if, as I have done, one assumes the tests are totally unreliable then it must follow that the PHE death data is totally unreliable.
There are no detailed data sheets on the content of death certificates as to whether there is a clear decision made as to whether COVID-19 was the direct cause of death or just a contributory factor.
So how do we know how many people died solely because of contracting COVID-19?
I again assumed that excess deaths data would pin point the number. But this will only show the difference in deaths for the last period compared to previous periods which in theory could be either 100% COVID-19 directly caused deaths or 100% not COVID-19. Basically a coin toss! We canāt prove COVID-19 directly caused deaths from this either.
We come down to anecdotal evidence in the end and this is really dependent on the quality and breadth of reporting and investigation by the media. And on this site particularly we all know what that means!
So basically all decisions taken by the authorities on all COVID-19 issues have been flawed or fraudulently constructed through the testing process. Since all decisions come back to the original declaration in February 2020 that we are facing an imminent threat to public health, and we know that from ā¦. THE NUMBERS!!!
Is it any wonder that the regulations bringing in powers of arrest for COVID-19 transgressions or offences were passed into law without going through the parliamentary process see:
āthe Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 were enacted at 6.50am on Monday and laid before Parliament by 2.30 that afternoon. Their preamble states that
the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
One can appreciate the desire to bypass the cumbersome mechanics of Parliament to save the country from a potentially deadly virus. But in the fullness of time, the resulting Regulations might well be held up as an excellent advertisement for Parliamentary scrutiny.
The enabling Act
Secondary (or subordinate) legislation ā such as regulations ā is made by the executive under powers granted by āenablingā primary legislation.
The enabling legislation cited in these Regulations is the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. And its use in this case might be said to be straight out of 1984.
The Coronavirus Regulations apply where the Secretary of State has issued a āserious and imminent threat declarationā, which he also managed to do on Monday. They extend to England only.ā
cheers
2 Likes
Hi ED
Thanks for that post. I havenāt had time to read through all the detail but I just looked at the published study included at the end.
My first reaction is that this is exactly the story that did the rounds late last summer. The publication date on the paper is October 2020, roughly when I last heard this. At the time I looked into the detail and came to the conclusion that it was trying to make too much of a meal of those who had co-morbidities and was trying to have them excluded from the stats. At first glance it looks a reheated version of yesterdayās leftovers.
Letās look at the abstract of that paper:
Abstract
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on August 23, 2020,
āFor 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.
It might be a coincidence that the title of this thread is ā94%ā of covid deaths were wrong, and the fact that 6% of deaths have covid as the only cause of death. Or it might be lazy, sensationalist journalism at it was the last time this story was reported. My money is in the latter.
Iāve spoken at length about the fake distinction of death from covid, and death with covid. Iām not sure itās worth going through it all again, as no one paid attention the first time! That argument holds almost no water with me.
Iāll look through the rest of the links, but the premise of this entire concept simply fails the sniff test immediately. Too many doctors in the US have horror stories of overfilled covid wards. Is it credible that the true death toll was only 6% and theyāre all lying?
When respected doctors like Pierre Kory addressed Congress (twice) saying things like
āall my wards are full. all I see is covid, covid covid, and all of them are dyingā
He was making it up? Seems unlikely.
When New York city had makeshift hospitals in central park, and lines and lines of trucks carrying people to the morgue, can we really believe that the death toll was really only 6%? Recall that the US has no qualms about filming inside hospitals. All those reports were faked?
Itās not credible to me. And even if the US was caught in the grasp of a dastardly plot to fake all these deaths, is that true of all the other countries that have simultaneously also agreed to do the same? Iād need to see some real evidence of that before I believe it.
If the argument is that all those people did die - just not from Covid, then the question becomes what caused the biggest spike in excess mortality for 50 years in all these countries simultaneously? If not covid then what? Diabetes? Obesity?
Itās not credible.
As I said, Iāll take a look through the links, but my expectations are pretty lowā¦
Cheers
PP
(EDITED)
Hi PP. Frustrating for no-one to pay attention, but many may have looked but (like me) shied away of dipping their toe in.
Iām going with the latter of your options, ie
" If the argument is that all those people did die - just not from Covidā¦"
This is what I was assuming - surely thereās no way the total deaths can be only 6% what is reported.
Yes I saw this did the rounds in October, I didnāt get too much into it because of exaggerations ( like the title, āCDC admits at least 94% of deaths from Covid19 were WRONGā is misleading if it actually just means certified by a process that is wrong or wrongly carried out) but also because the substance (nitty-gritties to do with rules and definitions) was too murky.
In my view what the issue needed was accurate analysis. This I believe is what is on offer with this report, which after all seems to be in several court cases. At the core is presumably, what was true in October before wings were fitted to the story. The downside of a measured approach is less spectacular and less simple accusations, but the upsides are that they are still significant numerically, and canāt be debunked.
"If the argument is that all those people did die - just not from Covid, then the question becomes what caused the biggest spike in excess mortality for 50 years in all these countries simultaneously? If not covid then what? Diabetes? Obesity?
Itās not credible"
Iām not sure about this excess death in 50 countries (I think there will be excess death in countries with pharma-dominated health services). Denis Rancourt says his team only know a few countries with reliable deaths data for excess death calculation. Even that needs accurate data, because in the countries he studied (he only showed one though) falling deaths reversed after 2008 (the big crash, and some kind of austerity in many western countries) and because the rise was continuing, five-year averages understated the āexpectedā number of deaths. This accounts for some of the āexcessā - thereās plenty to come out. Also, in the UK there has been a high component of excess deaths that occurred at home but it could be hard to find data on other countries.
PHE maintain data on deaths and excess deaths including various breakdowns:
If you follow the arrows you can get a breakdown by individual disease categories, place of death (home/hospital etc) and things like ethnicity, deprivation. Iāve personally found that only the place of death shows meaningful differences. I stopped because it takes up a lot of time
Cheers
An interesting point. Iād say measuring births and deaths is fairly accurate. Excess deaths are an estimate, true, but the bump is so large that even with uncertainty itās clear that something unusual is going on.
Itās also another reason to actually listen to what front line doctors (like Pierre Kory) are reportingā¦ Something that all covid sceptics just want to ignore.
All, and I mean all frontline doctors are saying the same thing. No need for stats.
Incidentally did you see the discussion on excess mortality I had with PatB (also disputing a bit of UKC propaganda)? The excess death bump from austerity is quite obvious in the UK.
Cheers
PP
āAn interesting point. Iād say measuring births and deaths is fairly accurate. Excess deaths are an estimate, true, but the bump is so large that even with uncertainty itās clear that something unusual is going on.ā
Something unusual is going on yes, but it can still be exaggerated. Itās definitely already being exaggerated by the decision taken in Feb 2020 that there was no point in trying to treat a virus! This decision to let a new but treatable virus run rip may in itself have cased the majority of the deaths.
PP you said earlier:
āIt might be a coincidence that the title of this thread is ā94%ā of covid deaths were wrong, and the fact that 6% of deaths have covid as the only cause of death. Or it might be lazy, sensationalist journalism at it was the last time this story was reported. My money is in the latter.ā
Are you assuming everyone questioning the data is trying to deny Covid? That wasnāt the purpose of my post, anyway. If there are data fiddles I want them to come out.
So as I said, the title of this thread is misleading but that doesnāt mean that the forensic people working in this area are covid-deniers. I think it was seized on too zealously (I like my tautologies 
)
A point I was trying to get to is that the numbers could easily be exaggerated (which these little data recording/counting fiddles are presumably trying to do) by about a factor of four, say, without changing the nature of the figures. However it would change the seriousness of the picture, which is important given the drastic measures that have flowed from it. I for one think we are entitled to have the true picture even if it doesnāt change most peopleās view of the situation.
Cheers
Hiya
Great point. But letās be careful. Itās possible to exaggerate deaths by letting people die by withholding treatment. Those people still died and covid was what pushed em over. Letās not lose track of those deaths.
Itās also possible to exaggerate by simply exaggerating the numbers (by a factor of 4, perhaps). That could happen of course. Iāve yet to see any credible evidence that data is being actively faked in this way.
Thatās probably because all the relevant evidence is in the article you posted above that I still havenāt fully read yet 
However. As far as I see it we have decent evidence of something very unusual in our stats, loads of doctors literally crying about the scale of the deaths they have to deal with (needing counseling and therapy), this situation being repeated around the globe from Cuba to new Zealand (examples picked because they buck the trend).
One explanation is that there is a global pandemic, killing loads of people. Like many that have come before. The other is that there is a global conspiracy involving nations from Ecuador to India to fake or exaggerate the deaths.
Iām still leaning strongly to case (1). Iām waiting for a single whistleblower or indeed any kind of evidence for case (2) to bubble upā¦
Definitely not. Trying to understand the data is crucial for all of us.
They might be. I really need to see strong evidence for that. Evidence of faked death certificates happening in the thousands or hundreds of thousands. An insider coming clean. Something like that.
But Iām not giving one America News the benefit of the doubt. They are sensationalist scammers.
Right. I really need to look at your other post. Iāll have a look.
Can we please forget about one America News for the moment, it was no part of my post and Iām sure itās not the basis of any court case
A couple of interesting articles here from The Herland Report.
The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of Positive Cases are Meaningless
One fourth of reported Covid-19 deaths were not Covid after all, UK government now reports
Hi bwana
Scoutās honour. Although if it comes back again as a source of this story, I reserve the right to point out (again) what a piece of crap they are.
Ok. Iāve read through the majority of the transcript, and the majority of the published paper - I really appreciate you going through the trouble of posting it. Makes all the difference having the sources. Overall the interview is interesting with lots of subjects covered from deaths, to cases to HCQ to Quercetin etc. In the interests of brevity (ha!) Iāll try and stay only on the subject of deaths and stats.
The core argument for the inflated death claim is that the CDC changed the reporting rules to put Covid as primary cause of death, and put all comorbidities as secondary.
The authors make two complaints about this:
- A medical one that this change over-estimates covid fatalities by up to 96%, and
- A legal one, that any changes must provide a 60 day notice period before they can be implemented, which they failed to do
I think the first complaint is almost (maybe not 100%) totally bogus, and the second one is almost (but not 100%) totally bonkers. The CDC paper requested that people use the new codes for Covid-19, and that:
COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II. (See attached Guidance for Certifying COVID-19 Deaths)
Emphasis in the original. If Covid caused the death, was assumed to have caused the death or contributed to the death it should be written down. Other comorbidities and as much detail as possible should also be written down. Dr Henele doesnāt seem to want to emphasise any of this, although he mentions it, so was aware of the emphasised bit.
Thatāt pretty much it. The smoking gun. Personally, I find this whole thing entirely overblown (once again - itās exactly reheated leftovers as I had thought). The CDC decided to upgrade their ability to track the spread of this novel coronavirus pandemic in the USA by asking doctors who thought that Covid was the primary cause of death or a significant reason for the death, to put that information up front on the form for easy tracking. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Does this mean that they inflated Covid deaths by 96% - of course not. We know that certain people are more vulnerable to Covid if they have certain conditions (like asthma, obesity or diabetes etc.) If these people then get Covid they are much more likely to die. According to Dr Henele (and Mercolis) those people then died of asthma, obesity or diabetes. What nonsense! Sure there are cases that involve people who are very sick (maybe with cancer for example). They are undergoing therapy then they get Covid and die. Did they die of Covid or cancer? I would say that if Covid meant that they died even a month before the cancer would have taken them, they died of Covid in their cancer-weakened state.
In my opinion, Dr Heneleās graph and analysis is far more misleading than the CDC stats. He would exclude from the death toll anyone who had a co-morbidity. This is the only way that he can claim his absurdly low fatality figure. Who is served by such clearly wrong figures? It just feels like propaganda to me. Worse than that, he would like to use the low figure to encourage society to āgo back to schoolā and engage in other activities that would clearly spread the virus further making he situation much worse.
Ok, on to the legal argument. In the face of a global pandemic, spreading like a wildfire and no real way of tracking it, Dr Henele is outraged that the CDC didnāt file a 60 day notice period that they wanted to make this change, and then go through whatever congressional hoops they would have to, in order to get it changedā¦ Would that have been the responsible thing to do, I ask you? Wait 2-3 months before making the change and get congress involved (and possibly the Prez himself), while the pandemic rages like a forest fire around you.
Bonkers. What the hell is he talking about?
Anyway. That seems to be it. Iām 100% unimpressed at this re-hashing of a poor argument from a new direction. Trying to drop people with co-morbidities from the stats as Henele and others have tried to do seems like bad science, and borderline eugenics. Iām generally no fan of the CDC, but in this case I see no case to answer.
Cheers
PP
2 Likes
Wow - thanks for reading all that PP, thatās a service!
I should say Iām not saying I endorse this document just that I think your dismissal is not justified.
Having said that I still havenāt seen anything I found unreasonable in it.
Just to keep your thread:
" The authors make two complaints about this:
ā¢ A medical one that this change over-estimates covid fatalities by up to 96%, and
ā¢ A legal one, that any changes must provide a 60 day notice period before they can be implemented, which they failed to do"
the first of these you say is almost totally bogus.
But why is it bogus? The report says āFor deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death.ā[1]ā
If we arenāt deliberately favouring Covid but we want to avoid multiple counting, wouldnāt it be logical to count the Covid cause proportionately to the total number of causes listed? Eg if 4 causes including Covid, then 0.25 Covid death. Only Covid equals 1 Covid death etc
That way the number of deaths wouldnāt be inflated even if we published stats for every disease. And the average amount that should be counted per āCovid deathā counted under the system actually used would be 1/3.6 or about 0.28 covid deaths. Thatās instead of 1 Covid death, so the overstatement in reality is 0.72.
I know that would seem weird and it would be different, but itās still logical - I mention it mainly to illustrate that the ābogusnessā in reality is in assigning multiple cause to one cause. Also, the way deaths are counted is for quiet statistical boffins to mull over incidences of illnesses - itās totally unsuited to the task of informing the public on a specific, new disease unless you actually want to scare them.
Also if there is 72% overcounting then is describing it as āup to 96%ā so ridiculous? I presume that means someone in an extreme case could have 24 other co-morbidities listed. So 1/25 due to Covid, 4% in reality; 96% overshoot in this extreme case. As an aside, I wouldnāt have shouted this āup to 96%ā myself, but thatās just me.
" We know that certain people are more vulnerable to Covid if they have certain conditions (like asthma, obesity or diabetes etc.) If these people then get Covid they are much more likely to die. According to Dr Henele (and Mercolis) those people then died of asthma, obesity or diabetes. What nonsense! Sure there are cases that involve people who are very sick (maybe with cancer for example). They are undergoing therapy then they get Covid and die. Did they die of Covid or cancer? I would say that if Covid meant that they died even a month before the cancer would have taken them, they died of Covid in their cancer-weakened state."
Itās not just Dr Henele (and Mercolis) - itās the existing CDC (and world) method. It wasnāt changed for Sars, Bird Flu or Swine Flu. Referring to the introduction of the CDC handbook in 2003, the legal document says
āThese handbooks would immediately become the nationwide standard illustrating exactly how cause of death should be recorded in cases of comorbidity for all death certificates. These handbooks have been used successfully for 17 years without need of update. They remain in use today for all causes of death except where involvement of COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed. When involvement of COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed, the March 24th, 2020 COVID-19 Alert No.2 guidelines are used instead. [7][8]ā
I repeat, the excuse of āthe pandemicā to loosen the counting becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy; it looks like this was the aim.
āOk, on to the legal argument. In the face of a global pandemic, spreading like a wildfire and no real way of tracking it, Dr Henele is outraged that the CDC didnāt file a 60 day notice period that they wanted to make this change, and then go through whatever congressional hoops they would have to, in order to get it changedā¦ Would that have been the responsible thing to do, I ask you? Wait 2-3 months before making the change and get congress involved (and possibly the Prez himself), while the pandemic rages like a forest fire around you.ā
As another aside, I wonder if you are ceding too much ground to what is expected? I say this because āthe pandemicā wasnāt really global on 24 March (18000+ deaths worldwide using the overcount) but with no control over the counting a āpandemicā would be guaranteed to occur by ANY spreading infection.
As they didnāt need to make any change to the counting I donāt see why the panic - that they generated themselves - gives a reason to change to counting it wrongly. Itās not like there was no way of counting the deaths - there already was a widely accepted way of counting the deaths, so even āin the middle of a pandemicā (especially, even) they could have stuck to that. No change, no holdup.
The problem they seemed to have was that ordinary counting would have produced counts that would have been less convincing as a pandemic. This disastrous overcounting was then operated in parallel around the world; even by the end of the first wave last June or so it became difficult to separate deaths from the virus to deaths from the virus restrictions and policies. So I donāt think this for example is at all unfair:
āThis change was enacted apparently without public opportunity for comment or peer-review. As a result, a capricious alteration to data collection has compromised the accuracy, quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of their published data, leading to a significant increase in COVID-19 fatalities. This decision by the CDC may have subverted the legal oversight of the OMB as Congressionally authorized by the PRA&IQA as well.[7][8]ā
It seems reasonable to me. As a result doctors and politicians are talking about infections that mostly would not exist under previous definitions. I think this had grave consequences because the pointless focus on cases as āinfectionsā has obscured safer policy options. For example, lower the cycle threshold further narrowing down the ācasesā, but making a case more likely to be ill and/or infectious, thereby freeing the bulk of people who arenāt a danger.
Iāve not studied the rest of the legal-ish report; Iām not vouching for it, I just donāt think it should be thrown out as itās a valid move towards trying to count Covid accurately - exactly what has been needed all along in my view, and better late than never.
Iām away to take up my job offer on One America News 
1 Like
Just to be clear, P: youāre not saying, I take it, that no figures have been fiddled at all, are you? The sharp question has to be: how much, by whom, and for what purpose?
Similar question around how busy are the hospitals. When you look at that horrifying report from India that you just posted, itās clear that something bad is going on there (unlike in Indiaās inevitable comparator China; better socio-political system, perhaps; not been to China, but my abiding impression of India is of a country absolutely beset by chronic, endemic corruption at nearly all levels above Untouchables; positively set up to be a shitshow in an emergency - like USuk).
In the same way - though much smaller - clearly there have been some wards and hospitals in the West that have come close to swamping - now and then, for short whiles. But - despite what may be a slightly over-egged description that you offered - it simply isnāt true that all of them are having such an overwhelm. My local district hospital being one example: every time I go there (for yet another shot in the eye! 
), all is pretty normal. The pace hasnāt changed, thereās literally no sense of emergency there at all. As for the overall tally of the pressured locations versus the non-pressured: once again I think thatās simply lost at the moment in the fog of axe-grinding assertions from all sides.
I suggest that - just now - the picture hasnāt yet cleared enough to be able to come to a definitive conclusion on just how abnormally bad the covid flu has been, or continues to be. Surely we can agree by now that there are unmistakable signs that the ānewsā is being manipulated to steer people in some gic-factionās preferred direction. And that alone, quite apart from all the other indicators of fiddling that abound, demands that we make no obdurate judgements on whatās really happening.
At the moment, itās seeming to me that the āno-pandemicā narrative is under-estimating how bad the illness is, whilst the manipulators are clearly over-estimating; probably substantially. For this reason, I also doubt we know with any certainty just how many medical staff have died of covid - have authentically died of a novel respiratory affliction, that is. Probably some. Danās story always sticks with me as one sole reliable data point in the fog. And itās clear that he - a man in his middle years - nearly died, and then suffered (is still suffering?) long-covid (which can also occur with other flus, btw).
I still have no fixed idea about whatās really happening, under the PBB. My current guess is that - yes - thereās a nasty flu-type disease about, easily treated by well-established specifics, and transiting from acute to endemic whilst we watch, right now, and yes, causing quite a bit of mayhem, and possibly some substantial excess death in some places; but no, it really isnāt the global emergency that the gics and their whores are crying up, strictly to stampede us all in their desired direction.
So - donāt panic; and donāt ever join ANY stampede, in any directionā¦ just wait! 