The Spike Protein Is the Killer – Beware of mRNA “Vaccines”

 

The Spike Protein Is the Killer – Beware of mRNA “Vaccines”

Beware of the Spike Protein! Beware of mRNA injections!

To do so, you have to absolutely avoid taking or being coerced into accepting the mRNA “non-vaccine” – experimental gene therapy. Because that’s what it is. The experiment is you. Already in SARS-1 of 2002 / 2003, the original, affecting principally the Chinese genome, as did this first covid-19 virus, more appropriately called SARS-CoV-2; it addressed the Chinese DNA. Complements of Harvard’s clandestine, illegal Chinese DNA harvesting in the late 1990s and 2000. See this.

When the Harvard people finally were caught and kicked out of China, it was too late. They had already collected hundreds of thousands, if not millions of DNA samples – upon which most-likely US P4 bio-war labs manufactured this particular corona virus.

This is how Josh MIttledorf puts it:

“The spike protein is the part of the virus structure that interfaces with the host cell. SARS 1 and SARS 2 viruses both have spike proteins that bind to a human cell receptor called ACE-2, common in lung cells but also present in other parts of the body. Binding to the cell’s ACE-2 receptor is like the wolf knocking at the door of Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. “Hello, grandmama. I’m your granddaughter. Please let me in.” The virus is a wolf wearing a red cape and hood, pretends to be an ACE-2 enzyme molecule seeking entrance to the cell.” See this.

Covid-19, alias SARS-CoV-2, is a perfected version of SARS-1, the original one of 2002 / 2003 that hit primarily China. In early 2020, once Wuhan and much of the Hubei Province, and later other parts of China, were sealed off and under lockdown, because Chinese scientists reacted fast to what they immediately knew, this was a new attempt at attacking China, the Chinese health system – the Chinese population. The Chinese authorities were called dictatorial – and followed by the usual denigrations – but they were successful in containing the virus and in dominating it, keeping the damage it caused within boundaries.

Due to these various lockdowns and other hygienic and health measures, close to 80% of the Chinese manufacturing capacity was closed, which had an enormous impact on the rest of the world, depending on Chinese supply chains. Thanks to China’s severe measures to overcome the pandemic as quickly and health-efficiently as possible, China’s economy was up and running again within about six to eight months, and practically to full capacity by the end of 2020.

The inventor of the mRNA-type of vaccine, Dr. Robert Malone, says that the vaccine causes lipid nanoparticles to accumulate in different organ tissues, and specially “in high concentration” in ovaries, meaning, it causes infertility and / or often miscarriages in pregnant women. See this – including a 15 min. video interview with Dr. Malone and evolutionary biologist Dr. Bret Weinstein. What makes the mRNA “non-vaccine”, better called by its CDC assigned name – experimental gene-therapy – so dangerous, is that it produces spike proteins throughout every cell in the human body.

The cause for this rapid and often deadly proliferation of the spike protein is what Dr. Jane Ruby, medical expert and pharmaceutical researcher, calls “Magnetofection”, an aggressive magnetic gel delivery system, included in the injection – to transport the spike protein in “warp speed” into every cell of the human body.

The German manufacturer, Chemicell GmbH, Berlin (see this) of this special magnetic gel says it’s not for use in humans. Yet, Moderna and Pfizer are using it in their mRNA experimental gene-therapy, about which they lie and call it falsely “vaccine”. – Watch Dr. Jane Ruby’s 9 min video here.

This magnetofection transport system is so powerful, that people, who got their jab, were able to stick magnets on their body. The COVID “non-vaccine” injected lipid nanoparticles tell the body to produce the spike protein. Thanks to the magnetic gel, they rapidly leave the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues. See this by Dr. Alex Pierson.

The spike proteins being activated in virtually every cell of the human body are overwhelming the body’s immune system, thus, fighting it, rather than enhancing it. This may lead to numerous complications and infections over time. Some of them, like blood clotting, resulting in thrombosis and other heart ailments – and death – may be immediate results after the inoculation. Other potentially fatal effects, many of neurological nature, may not show up immediately but only over time – after one, two, or three years? It will then be difficult to trace the infirmity produced by the Spike Protein back to the vaccine.

In a compelling 1-minute video, Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer Vice President and Chief of Science, warns, “Everyone who takes the experimental vaccine cannot escape death”. See this.

We can only hope that these “compromised” mostly western governments will come to their senses and realize in time what they are doing to the very populations that elected them – and are paying for their livelihood.

If these so-called “world leaders” – imagine, 193 UN member governments follow the same script – something is not quite right, does not fit the agenda of health protection, but fits rather an evil plan against humanity – if these “world leaders” continue following the dictates of their dark satanic masters, they may end up in a Nuremberg 2.0 kind of Court of Justice for crimes against humanity.

Dr. Reiner Füllmich, German-American lawyer and leading member of the German Corona Investigative Committee, has already filed several lawsuits, including class action suits in Canada and the US, and initiated legal prosecution against individuals and institutions mostly in Europe. See the video below – Crimes against Humanity – and this.

Sociologist, philosopher, teacher and writer, Ed Curtin, had this to say:

I know that the experimental mRNA “vaccines” that are being pushed on everyone are not traditional vaccines but dangerous experiments whose long-term consequences are unknown. And I know that Moderna says its messenger RNA (mRNA) non-vaccine “vaccine” functions “like an operating system on a computer” and that Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, says that the lipid nanoparticles from the injections travel throughout the body and settle in large quantities in multiple organs where the spike protein, being biologically active, can cause massive damage and that the FDA has known this.

Additionally, I know that tens of thousands of people have suffered adverse effects from these injections and many thousands have died from them and that these figures are greatly underestimated due to the reporting systems.  I know that with this number of casualties in the past these experimental shots would have been stopped long ago or never started.  That they have not, therefore, convinces me that a radically evil agenda is under way whose goal is harm not health because those in charge know what I know and much more. See full text of Ed’s essay here.

 

How Did a Disease with No Symptoms Take Over the World?

“There are two ways in which people are controlled: first of all frighten them, and then demoralise them. An educated healthy, and confident nation is harder to govern.” –Tony Benn

Biologists tell each other stories. These stories might involve lots of acronyms and use strange and wonderful verbs and nouns but, unlike say mathematics, the mechanism by which biologists convey their science is at heart through the use of language. But unlike works of creative writing, the language used by biologists needs to be precise because bad English can lead to bad science. Which is why it jarred so much when I first read the following statement:

A third of people with COVID-19 have no symptoms.

The more technically correct statement (assuming that “a third” is accurate) is:

A third of people infected with [more correctly, testing positive for] the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have no symptoms.

So why did the first statement raise my biological hackles so much when at first glance these two statements might appear to be essentially very similar? It is because from a biological perspective they are profoundly different. The first statement asserts the existence of a disease with no symptoms i.e., a sickness that is indistinguishable from being healthy, while the second statement asserts that a viral infection does not necessarily result in a disease. It is not a question of semantics but accuracy and mixing these two concepts up is the sort of thing that would have resulted in an ‘F’ if I were to have submitted it in an essay to one of my professors. Yet, this is exactly the inaccurate language that has been used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and not by students learning their discipline, but by experienced senior scientists who, one assumes, are well aware of what they are saying.

One could argue that this is unimportant as surely the point is to convey the idea that you could be infectious with coronavirus and be unaware of it and the first statement is an easy way to do this for the layman. Not only does this assumption treat the public as if they were children unable to understand the nuances of infection and disease, but I’d argue that the second statement is just as easy to understand as the first. No, the reason to create a disease with no symptoms is based on a profound decision, one that I believe was made with the intention of ensuring compliance but has, since its inception, grown to dominate our entire response to COVID-19.

First, let’s see why defining having a disease based purely on the presence of a pathogen is a flawed concept. This is best illustrated by reference to another virus, Epstein-Barr Virus or EBV. You’ll be forgiven if you’ve never heard of this virus, but it could be argued to be one of the most successful human pathogens because almost everyone is infected by it. Most people are infected early in life and if this happens then EBV takes up residence in your B-cells (the cells in your immune system responsible for making antibodies) where it quietly persists throughout your life. Every now and then the virus goes into active replication and makes copies of itself which get shed into your mouth, a process that you are blissfully unaware is happening. The problems with EBV generally occur if you don’t get infected early in life but avoid infection until you’re much older. Now when you get infected with EBV, you can develop a disease called infectious mononucleosis or, more commonly, glandular fever. This often happens in young adults when they become interested in close physical contact with members of the opposite (or same) sex… which is why glandular fever is sometimes referred to as “the kissing disease”.

Now let’s apply the new asymptomatic COVID-19 orthodoxy to EBV where we define having a disease purely through the presence of a viral genome. So, according to this definition, almost everyone in the U.K. (and the world) is suffering from a new disease, asymptomatic glandular fever, and if we were to do a large-scale mass screening campaign we’d discover that there were millions of ‘cases’ of asymptomatic glandular fever in the U.K. alone!

Of course, this is complete nonsense. We aren’t all ‘suffering’ from asymptomatic glandular fever. Glandular fever requires infection by EBV, but EBV infection does not necessarily lead to glandular fever. The same is true of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 and so the concept of asymptomatic COVID-19 as a disease is as ridiculous as that of asymptomatic glandular fever.

But as is the case with EBV, being infected with SARS-CoV-2 means that you can still pass it on even if you aren’t sick. However, it is a matter of degrees and the reason that people can be healthy carriers is simply because they have less viral replication and a lower viral load, which is why they aren’t sick. Of course, if the lower levels of SARS-CoV-2 in an asymptomatic individual were sufficient to mean such an individual was as infectious as someone with symptoms, then from an infectivity perspective the distinction between asymptomatic carriers and people with COVID-19 is unimportant and our statement would need to read:

A third of people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus have no symptoms but are just as infectious as those with COVID-19.

However, this situation would mean that the R number for SARS-CoV-2 would likely be much greater than it is, and that coronavirus infection and COVID-19 would have crashed through the population in one huge tsunami at the start of last year.


This wasn’t the case, and all the evidence is that healthy, asymptomatic carriers (and pre-symptomatic sufferers) are much less infectious than those with symptoms and a disease (see Will Jones’s summary of COVID-19 facts for links to supporting evidence).

Given that this is all so blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever been near a biology textbook, the only reasonable conclusion we can draw about the creation of an asymptomatic disease is that it wasn’t done by a biologist but instead by individuals (probably on the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B)) whose agenda is not to convey accurate information to the public but something different: fear and uncertainty.

The effect of the asymptomatic disease is to blur the lines between being healthy and being sick and means that people will consciously, or subconsciously, transfer some of their understanding of symptomatic COVID-19 and apply it to asymptomatic COVID-19. The implication being that the absence of symptoms is somehow not relevant and that just because you feel fine, you are in fact suffering from a deadly disease. This naturally creates fear, fear for oneself (what if I have it?) and fear of everyone else (they look O.K., but what if they have it?). This fear is useful if you now want to control the behaviour of people and drive compliance with policies designed to limit the spread of COVID-19, but the problem is that having created the asymptomatic monster as a mechanism to ensure compliance, it soon starts to consume everything because you now need to manage this disease with no symptoms.

The first thing asymptomatic disease needs is a way of identifying who has it. By definition, asymptomatic individuals have no symptoms and so in order to identify who is sick we need a test. Not only do we need a test, but because anyone who is healthy could be silently suffering from this illness, we will need a lot of tests. And because healthy people can become sick without any change in how they feel or look, then the testing needs to be endless. Also, because the disease is only defined by the presence of the virus, then positive screening results (real or false positives) naturally become ‘cases’, confirming the ongoing presence of the asymptomatic disease. Testing begets more testing.

The whole host of non-pharmaceutical interventions – including lockdowns – can also be seen as logical steps to take in fighting an asymptomatic disease. If sick people have no symptoms, then we need to employ strategies in everyday life to manage them. In effect, we have to treat the entire population as if it were ill and deploy measures across the whole of society with this in mind. This effectively leads to ‘reverse quarantine’ where we lock up the healthy to try and protect the few genuinely sick people.

Likewise, vaccine passports are also driven by the need to manage asymptomatic disease because it is only by proving that you’ve had a medical intervention that we can be sure that your lack of symptoms are not a cause of concern. But being immune doesn’t stop an individual from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2, it just means their immune system more rapidly and effectively recognises and deals with this infection and as a result they may never develop symptoms. In other words, vaccination is no protection from asymptomatic COVID-19 and suitably sensitive screening will continue to detect asymptomatic ‘cases’ amongst the immune population. Proponents of vaccine passports acknowledge this and argue (correctly) that if immune individuals are infected with coronavirus, they will carry a lower viral burden and so are less infectious. However, they then go on to demonise unvaccinated, naïve healthy individuals because they might be asymptomatic carriers. In reality, healthy people are healthy and even if they are carriers are unlikely to infect other people in normal social situations regardless of vaccination status. In fact, if you support the notion of asymptomatic COVID-19 ‘sufferers’ being a significant source of infection, it could be argued that we need vaccination certificates to protect the non-vaccinated from the vaccinated!

Finally, there is the whole question of variants. Clearly, a new, virulent more deadly strain of coronavirus that evades current immunity is a very concerning thing as it would essentially reset the clock back to the start of the pandemic: in effect it is a new disease. But because we have blurred the distinction between infection and disease and our focus is on the presence (and sequence) of viral genomes, every new variant is now treated as if it actually were a new disease. This in turn drives the need to continue to monitor (picking up more and more new variants) and manage ‘the spread of cases’ irrespective of the severity of disease they cause or the prior immunity within the population. Again, testing begets more testing in an endless cycle that will never stop unless we decide to stop it.

What all this means in practice is that the management of asymptomatic COVID-19 has become the the focus of the Government’s coronavirus policy, but if we go back to the original (mis)statement about asymptomatic COVID-19 and swap it around we get:

Two thirds of people with COVID-19 have symptoms.

Of course, this should read “three thirds (all!) of people with COVID-19 have symptoms” but the point I’m making is that hiding in plain sight is the fact that most people infected with SARS-CoV-2 get ill to varying degrees. We also know that people with symptoms account for the majority of onward transmission of the infection (again see Will’s summary for evidence). So, if we were designing an effective policy to manage COVID-19 we would focus our efforts on the sick as this is where we’re going to get the most bang for the buck.

What would this mean in practice? First, we would only need diagnostic testing capacity for the minority of the population with symptoms, rather than the industrial-scale screening that we have had to deploy to deal with asymptomatic COVID-19.

Second, restrictions would be focused on ill people, and this would be much easier, not only because these individuals are easier to find, but because sick people behave as if they were, well, sick and as such may not require much encouragement to prevent others getting ill. (“Don’t come too close, I’m not very well.”) They also probably wouldn’t want to go to work, or the gym, or the pub, or visit Granny. These restrictions would be time limited as they only apply to an individual while they are ill. We could use the billions of pounds saved on not destroying the economy in a futile attempt to quarantine the entire healthy population to ensure that these individuals were supported until they got better. We could invest in extra capacity in the healthcare system to manage any increase in hospitalisations and focus resources on improved treatments rather than testing and managing healthy people. The need for vaccination certification becomes irrelevant because healthy people are treated as healthy people and new variants only become of concern if they make individuals sicker. Essentially, we could stop treating COVID-19 as a special case with all the collateral damage this causes to non-COVID-19 related health and manage it as we would any other potentially serious infection. None of this is surprising as it is based on centuries of accumulated wisdom about how to manage infectious diseases. Unfortunately, the creation and focus on asymptomatic disease has drawn our eye away from the real illness and devoured huge amounts of time, effort, and money.

Being told that you are sick with a major illness can be a devastating piece of news, not just for the individual themselves but for those around them. Even if this news is couched in terms of positive treatment outcomes, it would be impossible to not be fearful and run hundreds of ‘what if’ scenarios through one’s mind. Regardless of how you feel today, the worries are all about progression and how you will feel tomorrow. Normally, clinicians would have a duty of care to their patients and spend time in discussing a diagnosis and helping their patients come to terms with this news. But for COVID-19, people receive the results of their diagnosis with no support. Worse through track-and-trace they might even receive this news completely unsolicited; imagine if a complete stranger phoned you to tell you that you might have cancer? Then, rather than offer support and comfort, we demand that individuals cut themselves off from others (self-isolate); you’re ill but on your own.

All of this has consequences, especially for those who have bought into the concept of asymptomatic COVID-19, and so is it not surprising that some people want to cling to mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns. In the end, it turns out that – ironically – asymptomatic COVID-19 might not be asymptomatic after all because for any number of vulnerable people the very existence of this asymptomatic disease has the potential to make them sick – sick with fear, worry and anxiety.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and COVID Statistics

 

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and COVID Statistics

Revealing Quotes from Anthony Fauci, Christian Drosten and F. William Engdahl that Explain why Anthony Fauci’s and Bill Gates’ Economically Disastrous Lock-down was Un-warranted and Unnecessary

From Free Press

“There are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” – Mark Twain

It has long been known that benign coronavirus species are capable of causing 15 – 30 % of common colds (usual symptoms: runny nose, cough, sore throat). This reality was recently mentioned by an internationally-famous virologist from Germany, in an interview where he also admitted that laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 is next to impossible given the high incidence of both false-positive “COVID-19” PCR swab tests and false positive “COVID-19” serum antibody tests.

Apparently, neither test seems to be able to distinguish between the benign coronaviruses that can cause common colds and the more serious coronavirus that actually causes COVID-19!

Dr Fauci’s ignorance of (or his ”conflict of interest-generated” failure to reveal) that fact justified his oft-repeated assertions in his endless media rounds and White House press conferences prior to the ill-fated economic shut-down:

“I think we should be overly aggressive (even if we) get criticized for over-reacting. I think Americans should be prepared … to hunker down.”

Anthony Fauci, as everybody should know, is the long-time director of the NIH’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases). He is, significantly, also a holder of many HIV vaccine patents and the holder of the patent for the Sanofi-Pasteur Corporation’s Dengue virus vaccine that recently killed 600 Philippine children.)

Another expert, Dr Christian Drosten, pictured on the right, is the Director of Berlin University’s Institute of Virology. He is known at “Germany’s real face of the coronavirus crisis”.

The quotes below came during an interview that Dr Drosten made last month, in which he revealed that the benign coronavirus that causes the common cold cannot be differentiated from the actual Covid-19 virus by the PCR test kits, over 200 of which are currently in development by profiteering medical device companies!

The interview can be read here.

Here are a few of the pertinent quotes:

“Some virologists now assume that there are people who have become immune to COVID-19 unnoticed because they have had a relatively harmless corona cold in the past.” 

“It is quite the case that we expect that there may be an unnoticed background immunity – due to cold coronaviruses, because they are related to the SARS CoV-2 virus in a certain way.”

“15 percent of common colds are caused by well-known coronaviruses. These are so similar to the current (COVID-19) virus that they can even cause false positive antibody tests.”

“It could be that certain people who had a cold virus a year or two ago are protected in an unprecedented way.”

*

COVID-19’s Phony Death Numbers

Covid-19’s Phony Death Numbers are the justification for unprecedented lockdown measures, euthanasia of the elderly, social distancing, detrimental masking, possible mandatory vaccines of dubious effect, all of which are causing the destruction of life and livelihood. But, why do this? And whose interests are being served?

By F. William Engdahl

Not only are the coronavirus models being used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality-only indirectly confirming evidence of a possible COVID-19 infection-but now the actual designations of deaths related to COVID-19 are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument that it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.

When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “death related to COVID-19” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “Spanish” Flu.

The USA and CDC Definitions

Right now the USA is said to be the nation with the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, as of this writing, with media reporting some 68,000 deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy.

The US Government agency responsible for making the cause of death tally for the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths.

As of May 5, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the CDC in Atlanta, the central agency recording causes of death nationwide, reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths. A footnote defines this as “Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19”.

How a doctor makes the “presumed” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals. Although the coronavirus tests are known to be subject to false results, CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “presume” COVID-19. Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes during the same period of February 1 through May 2, that was 751,953!

Now it gets even more murky. The CDC posted this notice: “As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts will include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.” From that time the number of so-called COVID-19 deaths in USA has exploded in an alarming manner – or so it would appear. On that day, April 14, New York City’s coronavirus death toll was revised with 3,700 fatalities added, with the provision that the count now included “people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.”

The CDC now defines “confirmed” as “confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19,” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision. Then they define “probable” as “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.” Just a guess of the doctor in charge.

Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period, we find another problem. Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if, say, a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests.

The CDC advises, “In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is “suspected” or “likely” (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’”

This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States.

A Big Money Incentive

A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private, for-profit businesses, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.

Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that,

“The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”

Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare.

Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer,

“Right now, Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.”

Little wonder that state governors, such as Massachusetts’ Governor Charlie Baker, suddenly began back-dating causes of death (totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed.

In short, the COVID-19 death statistics in the USA are highly dubious for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the huge financial incentives to hospital administrators who had been told to cancel all other operations to make extra room for a “predicted” flood of coronavirus illnesses. That “rising” death toll said to be “COVID-19-or presumed to be-COVID-19” brings on the decisions to lock down the economy and in effect create an economic pandemic of unparalleled dimensions.

The lack of uniformly agreed tests and the inaccuracies of many tests used, as well as the extremely doubtful criteria for declaring a cause of death as being “from” COVID-19 suggests that it is well past time to re-examine the unprecedented lockdown measures, social distancing, masking, possible mandatory vaccines of unproven effect, all of which are producing personal, social and economic devastation.

*

De-mystifying the Misleading COVID-19 Statistics

Understanding the Statistics: Provisional Death Counts and COVID-19

“There are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” – Mark Twain

Part Three: The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System  is where the numbers come from

Provisional death counts deliver our most comprehensive picture of lives lost to COVID-19.

These estimates are based on death certificates, which are the most reliable source of data and contain information not available anywhere else, including comorbid conditions, race and ethnicity, and place of death.

How it Works

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts. These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code.

When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause— the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.

Why These Numbers Are Different

Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons:

Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates.

Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions.

It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.

Things to Know About the Data

Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as additional records are received and processed. 

Provisional data are not yet complete. Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods. However, we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years.

Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions report deaths on a daily basis, while others report deaths weekly or monthly. In addition, vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.