Thanks for your clarification here @Evvy_dense, and for the example you include - really helpful. I know that we’re getting to the end of this particular discussion (beyond the end maybe!) So I’ll keep this as to the point as possible.
I think my points summarising Henele’s position are pretty accurate. I’ll let anyone else who’s interested (probably no one, to be honest!) make up their own mind.
(Incidentally, you’re mixing my “bogus” with my “bonkers” again. I did explain that pretty clearly, I thought!)
I 100% think that. They would have been unable to track covid properly for at least 2-3 months during the early phase with the old system.
Well. If the system was supposed to record covid in the second box as Henele seems to be strongly suggesting, it wouldn’t have been counted. That covid case would be effectively buried in the record keeping. That’s the point that I made in the last post above. They would have recorded hypertension, but not covid. That doesn’t seem right… By doing it this way round they can easily keep track of both.
Well, this is exactly why I was hoping you would come up with an example - thanks!
So the main concern here (in this example) is that a doctor is forced (by the new rule) to write down a disease that they know wasn’t responsible for the cause of death, as if it were the cause of death, whilst downplaying what they think is real cause of death?
Would you agree that this example highlights the main cause for concern, or have I fluffed it?
If so the question is, where are the frontline doctors saying that they are being forced to do this? Why does Pierre Kory not come back to Congress and say this? Why did he, in fact, say pretty much the opposite? How about the renegade group of frontline physicians who got into all kinds of trouble for trying to promote HCQ? Why don’t they come out and say “for every patient who really died of covid, I’m forced to add x-numbers who really died of something else?”
Or the brave doctors who are taking a public stance against the vaccines?
See, this, would be real actual evidence that the stats are being manipulated. Evidence I would happily take seriously and pay attention to. And moreover, is what I would expect to see if the CDC rules were forcing doctors to basically lie on the death certs. There are plenty of actual frontline groups who would happily come forward and blow the whistle on this. Where are they?
Another problem with the scenario in the example is that I would expect to see the CFR in the US look very different to the CFR in other countries if the US were forcing doctors to lie on the death certificate. Covid would be an apparently much more fatal disease in the US than in Europe, say, or Brazil. In fact Henele claims this to be the case in the transcript.
But it’s not. It’s almost exactly the same.
So we have no group of frontline doctors complaining that they are forced to lie, and no difference in the CFR between the US and other badly hit countries.
So how frequently, then, can your example truly be occurring? How often can doctors be forced to lie on the death cert without (a) causing outrage and whistle-blowing, or (b) affecting the CFR stats?
At most that can only be a small percentage 0-10% maybe? A point that I’ve willingly conceded at least three or four times in the above back and forth.
Can it be 16 fraudulent deaths for each actual death - the subject of Rippons original title and this entire thread? That seems literally impossible to me. Which is more or less what I said in my very first response in this entire thread!
I probably should have just left it there and not subjected the board to my endless posts…!
Anyway. I think I will leave it there. I thank you for the example and for all your patience with me over this long thread. I think your example clearly shows that Henele’s claim of massive fraud cannot possibly be right.
Cheers bwana.
PP
I know what you meant, but I said your arguments didn’t relate to justifying the claim of ‘bogus’ - lawyers justifying their case based on 17 years of operation, data and the lack of lawful procedure, and recalculating the figures can’t be bogus. The onus was on you to show ‘bogus’, not on me to show Henele’s case was correct.