Its Your material that said they didn't use ICD–10 code U07.1 in their data.  

 You won't provide any evidence that over 300,000 kids died in TX, which should be very easy to do.  You won't even acknowledge the question.  Why should I believe you on that?


 What part of U07.1 says to provisionally code bullet wounds as Covid?

"Lying.

Stating 2+2=5 is a outright lie."


  Stating ICD–10 code U07.1 says to provisionally code humans with Covid as dying from Covid is an outright lie.

 Stating the CDC did not disclose the provisional coding method in full is an outright lie.

 When a website says the CDC "secretly" changed statistics, when the CDC publicly said they would, is an outright lie.

 This is not equal to saying the CDC never lies.  I am saying when they publicly disclose a procedure, and somebody else lies about what it says, then in that one case and only that one case, the CDC didn't lie, someone else did.

 But as we all know, if someone else lies about what the CDC publicly disclosed, then the CDC lied.  Not the liar.


"The second person/agency knows XYZ is not true, but does not say anything.
That person/agency is lying by omission of fact."

 I agree.  I also think anti-vaccine websites can omit facts and lie.  300,000 kids should have died from heart issues, just in TX, in 2021 according to an anti-vaccine website.  Do you think that's true?

 Of course there will be manipulation, but the refusal to accept it can come from both sides is weird.  Especially when the very source material, if it were read, would prove it.


 

   2+2 could equal 5
if a certain set of parameters are used, in a certain way, by a certain agency, under a certain set of circumstances.
It is perceived not to be a Lie,
because of who said that,
what agency said that,
and how it was said.


 But all of code U07.1 methods are fully disclosed.  Posted publicly, and even stated verbally to millions in a press release.  It's all right there.  I posted every word here, including the exercises and training supporting documents.  How can you even debate this, there is ample evidence, even so much as it being complained about on this very forum.

 How is the CDC lying about how they request a provisional code?  How did the CDC lie when they posted everything right there for you to see?

 Because somebody else lied and said they didn't that means the CDC lied?


 Here maybe this will make sense:

MnSpring:  Stating 2+2=5 is a outright lie.

Eegore:  Look everyone, MnSpring said 2+2 =7.

JoG:  "MnSpring is a liar!


 That makes sense?  You are a liar because I lied about what you said?

"So, people, lied about the number’s.
They lied saying that information came from the CDC."

 Again with mixing collection methods with dispersal methods.  Do you guys really think nobody is going to notice that U07.1 is a collection method and not a dispersal method?

 

 "Then the CDC and WHO stood up
and said in a loud voice,
over and over again and again
it was wrong to just quote part of the numbers."

 They have made multiple statements to use their official documentation and not altered documentation from other sources.  Use "official" documentation is basically how that goes instead of commenting on every post ever made that is wrong.  Like if you said for people to use this forum to quote words you used on this forum versus using Reddit to paraphrase your words, or make up words you never ever said at all.  

 JoG references "reports of" that he won't even read, and then tells people that did read them that they are wrong.  The CDC would say look at the CDC reports to quote the CDC reports and not "other" reports from other sources.

 Yes the CDC and WHO are not fully transparent.  I never said they were, I said that all of code U07.1 methods are fully disclosed, and that none of it says to provisionally code humans with Covid as dying from Covid.  I presented ample information that proves this, but since a Facebook post lied, the CDC lied.

 If I lie about what you say, you are the liar.  That's what is being said here.



"Yet the CDC needs defending,
because it held a Press Conference.
(Was that the one that had 12 people at, or was it 15)
The ‘Millions’ were possible/potential’s, if they tuned in."

 It's archived and at the time almost every news channel broadcast them live, they did on this specific one which is why part of it was discussed on this forum.  Because it was on every major network, and at that time millions of people viewed those channels.  



"Keep defending the CDC.
They did nothing wrong.
Just like the AMA,
when they Threatened a Doctor,
for saying what he saw first hand."

 Again with this ridiculous over-reacting.  Saying the CDC did not lie about how they want to provisionally code is not equal to saying they did nothing wrong.  It is just your inability to have an adult conversation with somebody that doesn't agree on one section of a very large multi-faceted topic.  The AMA has nothing to do with the CDC fully disclosing a collection method.  The CDC did not lie about U07.1 methods, a Facebook post did.

 But since a Facebook post lied about the CDC, the CDC lied, and the supporting argument is the AMA or the Catholic church did things wrong?