I'm just So SHOKKT!


https://thewashingtonstandard.com/study-results-cdc-inflated-covid-numbers-by-16
00/

Nah, if you want to post something I'll look
But I'm not making a doctoral study out of it.
If you want to believe those numbers we were subjected to day in and day out weren't bullshit, go for it.

 I will do this much for now, but if this is going to be a issue of you telling me I am wrong an not even bothering to look at what i present then anything further is pointless and you will just believe anything that matches what you already think is true.

"It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis."

 "May have" ?  Why can't they provide proof?


"If the data being reported was indeed compromised by the CDC’s perplexing decision to abandon proven data collection and reporting practices in favor of untested methods, then all public health policies based upon these inaccurate data must be reexamined."

 IF?  You mean you can't provide information showing it to be true, while people spread it as verifiable fact?  Interesting how that works, say its true, but do not show its true.  Why can't any of those charts and examinations of CDC publications find any actual published words?


 Also:

"A peer-reviewed study has concluded that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention violated federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers."

 Lies.  From the report:

"further federal investigation is justified."

 Interesting that this "study" proves nothing, at least according to the 10 authors that contributed.  They do not conclude anything but an investigation is justified.  Maybe all that hypothetical math has something to do with it.

 So who is lying, the website saying there was a conclusion of evidence?  The piss-poor math?  The 10 authors that stated they can not conclude the CDC has actually reported the numbers they made up?  Or the people spreading this tripe like it's fact without taking the time to even read what it says?


"COVID-19 was to be listed in Part I of death certificates as a definitive cause of death, regardless of confirmatory evidence, rather than in Part II as a contributor to death in the presence of pre-existing conditions"


 This is a lie.  But believe it anyway, lets just ignore this from the CDC:

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.


 Code U07.2 is not even in the report JoG presents.  It's not even there.

 But lets pretend this means to say definitive cause of death is COVID so we can keep being angry over something that was never said.  Just look at the ad space percentage on the website this was posted on, you think that website isn't making revenue by posting anything and everything to get clicks?

 This study claims the CDC is in violation of 44 USC 3506 (d)(3).  But they do not say why.  Interesting that a claim can be made and defined as "conclusion" when the very authors won't use words to establish this conclusion.

 Why won't they put the violation in text?  Because it isn't there.  The article referenced is counting on people believing what they say and not reading for themselves.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3506



 Let's say these are used in mortality count statistics, and hope people won't read this:

 "The WHO has provided a second code, U07.2, for clinical or epidemiological diagnosis of COVID-19 where a
laboratory confirmation is inconclusive or not available. Because laboratory test results are not typically
reported on death certificates in the U.S., NCHS is not planning to implement U07.2 for mortality statistics. "

 Not planning, and has not, used U07.2 for mortality statistics.

 Convenient that was left out.  But lets ignore that now too.

Eegore wrote on 03/04/21 at 08:32:07:

 " ...
 Bottom line is The National is lying.  I don't toss that word around much, but there is no other way I know how to convey what their post says compared to what the study they linked says.
 ...
 It's like some Environmentalist sitting on the internet in Idaho claiming oil and oil drilling is "bad"
...  
telling the guy who worked oil rigs all his life that he's the moron that doesn't know how oilfields operate.  

A Perfect Explanation,
of how the anti-Firearm, Freedom hating, FDS'ing, UL, DFI Socialists operate !