"Is this provisional?"

 Yes.  Did you read my response and go over the forms when I responded to this the first time?  


""This section on the death certificate is for reporting the sequence of conditions that led directly to death. The immediate cause of death, which is the disease or condition that directly preceded death and is not necessarily the underlying cause of death (UCOD), should be reported on line a. The conditions that led to the immediate cause of death should be reported in a logical sequence in terms of time and etiology below it."

"When a death is due to COVID–19, it is likely the UCOD and thus, it should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I of the death certificate."


Based off of this, a public document, I would say that the provisional coding is not an attempt to cover-up leading mortality cause.  If you filed this type of paperwork you would see that the lowest line is not typically what would be considered the cause of death.

I don't exactly have issue with the examples provided in the appendix of VSRG Ro#03, what would you change?"

Eegore wrote on 04/16/20 at 10:26:18:

"...  you do not know what provisional means.  It is literally a situation that is intended for change, and all of it may be excluded from release data. ..."

Read that a bit slower.
"...and all of it   may be   excluded from release data..."

In my experience,
‘...work in administration...', (for a government, or private entity, which depends on Grants/Donations), means.
The absolute and precise movement of a piece of paper from one side of a desk to the other.
And,
‘...physical security...', (for a government, or private entity, which depends on Grants/Donations), means.
Tough Guy saying: ‘do what your are told to do, or else’.

Did not know that a side effect was the total and complete understanding/knowledge, (to the exclusion of anyone else that has studied the event/s), of how entities, which rely on donations/grants, use numbers/statistics, gathered by means those entities have themselves directed how to record, and how those numbers are used, by a organization, which relies on, Grants/Donations.

The stats count all Suicide, as School Shooting. If the Suicide is committed on owned or leased School property.
Now why, would someone do that ?

Evidence has been presented that they are using non CV death to inflate the numbers.
People are being TOLD, DAILY about the deaths. They are Intentionally generating fear. Now, you can posture and twist however you want, but THAT is what is HAPPENING. You think that because someone has Said they will revise the numbers toward a more accurate figure Later that the numbers they are telling people, inaccurate, INTENTIONALLY AND UNNECESSARILY inaccurate, isn't LYING.
Well, that's what I call it.
You call it whatever you need to call.

Eegore wrote on 04/16/20 at 10:20:22:



Not only is providing a diagnosis with a lab test is dishonest, it is fraudulent.  To say otherwise is simply asinine.....

Best regards,

Eegore wrote on 04/16/20 at 11:56:38:




How am I supposed to KNOW exactly who is lying? Did you see the instructions to the doctor? Is the DOCTOR LYING? Id deaths are Attributed to to CV because someone who had a poaitive result post mortem but they died in a wreck,, I call that a lie,, CAN you ATTEST your SOURCE IS honest? wEVE SEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE NUMBERS WE ARE BEING TOLD. who, exactly IS crEATING THOSE NUMBERS, who the fukk knows?

"How am I supposed to KNOW exactly who is lying? Did you see the instructions to the doctor?"

 Yes, in full.  I also read and did the exercise in VSRG#03, did you?  What part of those orders, specifically reference the words, and what you disagree with.


"Is the DOCTOR LYING?"

 No.  The doctor provide verifiable evidence, did you read all of it, then reference the supplemental materials?  If so what part of that material is dishonest, and how can disclosure of method even be dishonest?



"Id deaths are Attributed to to CV because someone who had a poaitive result post mortem but they died in a wreck,, I call that a lie"

 I'd call that a lie too, except the documentation you linked doesn't say to do that.  If it does, and I missed it, please point out, in the actual documentation where it says to place SARS-COV-2 as UCOD outside of standard etiology practice.



"CAN you ATTEST your SOURCE IS honest?"

 Its your source I am referencing.  And the totality of the evidence points to yes, since the material is documented thoroughly and exists on what appears to be live unaltered video.  



"wEVE SEEN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE NUMBERS WE ARE BEING TOLD. who, exactly IS crEATING THOSE NUMBERS, who the fukk knows?"

 I agree.  Except you are saying that the act of telling you how those numbers are coded temporarily is a lie.  The CDC is lying when they tell you how they are collecting data for their own use.



 So I answered your questions, and I expect you will continue to refuse to answer mine but here it goes anyway:

 If I tell you, and submit in writing that I am creating a data pool of vehicle related deaths that Include suicides in non-moving vehicles as a provisional count, not intended for final count purposes, am I lying?

"Is spreading
Knowingly inflated numbers LYING?"

 Yes.  Is the CDC doing this or your sh!t news source?


"Including KNOWN FALSE DATA , reporting it, scaring the crap outta ignorant people and giving those of us who know data that really tell us nothing
Is LYING."

 "reporting it"  Is the CDC reporting this, or your sh!t news source?

 Since people are ignorant they shouldn't disclose how they collect information?  Too scary.



"We are needlessly being fed numbers "
 
 By the CDC or your sh!t news source?


"Who is responsible for it?
FukkifIknow.."

 You claim the CDC is lying so they are responsible by your definition.



"Whoever is demanding doctors report death as CV CAUSED, when it wasn't is lying."

 So you are choosing to ignore the appendix of VSRG Ro#03, or never bothered to read it.  What would you change?


"Why include what doesn't belong, so you can LATER remove it?"

 Collective pooling of data is very common.  Provisional coding is a normal practice among many fields of work.  You collect data, then categorize it.  Instead of only collecting data that fits your categories.  



" it takes MORE time to work through data and remove what doesn't belong than to not demand Bullshit Be included"

 Yes it does.  It is also more accurate because you can create categories and metrics based off of evidence, instead of ignoring data that doesn't fit a category you created before you had all the data.  But what do thousands of people working in data collection over hundreds of years know?  Less than you it seems.


"You done?"

 No.  I respectfully answer your questions and you continue to ignore mine.  My assessment is that you refuse to answer because it proves a point you are unwilling to accept, or discuss.  But I will ask again:

 If I tell you, and submit in writing that I am creating a data pool of vehicle related deaths that Include suicides in non-moving vehicles as a provisional count, not intended for final count purposes, am I lying?

"Unless you Disclose at every time you give out numbers that
The Numbers LOOK higher han they really are
and tell people they are being given inflated figures that they really cant USE in their daily lives, YES.m You are. "

 I agree with that.  So, where is the CDC publishing official counts, with the provisional coding methods not disclosed?  That's a real question.  If this is being done somewhere I have issue with that.


In your examples I am interpreting it more like this:

 I tell you I am including suicides in non-moving vehicles as part of my initial data pool, and that the data will change as evidence is analyzed.  It makes no sense.  I submit it in writing, then on national TV.

 Citizens Against Bad Cars LLC publishes a video that includes non-moving vehicles as vehicular homicide cases.  CNN repeats the story to millions.

 Ignorant citizens get scared of cars because they chose to use the video, and CNN as their primary education on the issue.

 You call me a liar.