Don’t
blink. Johns Hopkins may delete or retract their analysis at any
moment. Their author’s study is devastating. Too hot to handle.
UPDATE: Yes, I wrote that opener a few hours before Johns Hopkins stepped in and DID retract the article. Boom.
Hopkins
claims the article has been used to spread misinformation about the
pandemic, and contains factual errors. CDC is cited as one correct
source of facts. Hmm.
Regardless,
here is my article, finished before the Johns Hopkins retraction. Since
then, I’ve only polished it a bit in several places, for clarity:
Months
ago, I told you this, in a number of articles: The overwhelming
percentage of people who are “dying from the virus” are actually dying
from traditional diseases.
These people have been relabeled and repackaged as “COVID-19.”
It has nothing to do with “the virus.”
A new analysis from Johns Hopkins confirms this in spades.
The
Johns Hopkins News-Letter article, in a student publication, is
headlined, “A closer look at US deaths due to COVID-19.” It lays out the
case made by “Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the
Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.”
As
you keep reading, keep this in mind: If the so-called increase in
mortality from COVID is offset, almost exactly, by a decrease in deaths
from all other major diseases…
Indicating that the so-called COVID deaths are nothing more than an exercise in re-labeling, then…
You can say there is a new coronavirus, but it’s even less harmful than flu, because virtually everybody recovers…
Or you can say the whole story of a new coronavirus is a fake narrative. There is no new virus.
My readers know I’ve been offering much evidence for the latter conclusion.
Here are key quotes from the Johns Hopkins News-Letter article:
“These
data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions,
the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has
relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
“This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?”
“When
Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period,
COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was
highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading
cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death
numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of
deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to [deaths per cause in]
2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across
all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart
disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden
decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.”
“This
trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous
years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease
in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths
by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death
toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases,
respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be [may have
been] recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”
“The
CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as
COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but
are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the
main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while
deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.”
“’All
of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths.
Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no
evidence to the contrary,’ Briand concluded.”
“’If
[the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should
have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased
COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the
other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some
misclassification [re-labeling],’ Briand replied.”
“In
other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered
problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the
true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected
deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all
causes before and after COVID-19 [was first announced] has stayed the
same, one can hardly say, in Briand’s view, that COVID-19 deaths are
concerning.”
Of
course, there is some mealy-mouthed backtracking in the article. The
virus is deadly and the pandemic is real, etc. But the data are the
data.
The whole COVID operation is a hoax.
If
I thought other honest researchers would investigate and re-calculate
the Hopkins analysis, I would say, let’s see what they come up with. But
based on my experience, there will be, at best, a brief flurry of
articles in the press about this extraordinary finding, and then the
scientific and press denizens will move on, as if nothing happened. That
is their way. They briefly expose a scandal and then they slither off
to cover up the scandal.
The
other possibility is: Hopkins will retract the analysis, claiming it
was flawed. That is the other strategy the low-crawling creatures
sometimes deploy.
So there you have it.
Hoax. Con. Fake.
As
I keep reporting, the virus (never proven to exist) is the cover story
for the true phase-one goal: destruction of the economy.
If the virus were real, if it were attacking people left and right, the all-cause mortality numbers would be through the roof.
But they aren’t.
“I
have a great idea, Bill. Let’s declare a fake pandemic. We’ll report
all sorts of high death numbers. But really, we’ll just be subtracting
numbers from other traditional diseases that cause deaths, and we’ll add
those numbers to our fake pandemic.”
“Sounds great, Tony. Can you pull it off? I mean, it’s pretty obvious.”
“Sure,
we can pull it off. And if some journalist with a mainstream reputation
or an institution suddenly develops a brief infection of ETHICS, we’ll
call their work a mistake or a lapse in judgment.”
“You mean an institution like the World Health Organization or Johns Hopkins?”
“Right. We’ll
say the institution didn’t issue the study, it was just one of their
people, a lone researcher. And if necessary, the institution, under
pressure, will back off. But that’s assuming anyone noticed the study in
the first place. Normally, these ‘revelations’ surface for a moment and
then sink like a stone. No one cares. A pandemic is a money
waterfall. The beneficiaries won’t sacrifice their bottom lines, or
their reputations…”
Of course, people can rise up and raise holy hell.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)
No comments:
Post a Comment