CDC Busted for inflating death numbers

[AntonToo]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

Nationalfile is junk source with zero jounalistic integrity.

Having said that, If Covid death numbers really are inflated then whats killing all the Americans abvove and boyond what we've seen in years before the pandemic?

Excess Deaths Associated with COVID-19

Figures present excess deaths associated with COVID-19 at the national and state levels.

www.cdc.gov

I would say its Democrat governors.

You would be wrong because places with Republican governors still have high excess deaths.

Go ahead and click places like Indiana instead of United States. we are seeing 40-50% more deaths than usual in the last month.

Indiana has 10,05 deaths to 629,903 cases that is a 1.5% mortality rate. Compare that to NY or NJ. And Indiana is 19th in the US in testing per capita so they test their population well.

Indiana is seeing it's people die by 40% higher than usual.

Whats killing them if not Corona and not their not-existant Democrat Governor.

Don't give me bullshit irrelant statistics, give me an actual answer.

All I can do is give stats, not made up libber garbage. Indiana has a Covid mortality rate below the US average, NY has one twice the US average.

You CAN give me an obvious answer. COVID IS KILLING THEM YOU FUCKING MORON.

Covid actually doesn't kill anyone

Nutbag, then whats killing all the people in America and specifically Indiana?

You keep being unable to answer. We know it ain't Democrat governors, because Indiana doesn't have that, so whats the explanation?

Again, the idiot Dem governors have killed far more of their individuals per capita than governors of red states...by whatever means the Covid death count is being captured. The virus itself rarely kills anyone. And I have already given you the facts from Indiana, where the mortality rate is below the US average. Do you know what statistics are?

You have giving bullshit that does not actually answer the fact of excessive deaths in Indiana.

1.5% of confirmed Covid infections leading to death SUPPORTS, not contradicts, excessive deaths in that state,

1.5% is below the US average and well below the global average. 3% is ABOVE the US and global average....as is the 3.1% of New Jersey....and other idiot Dem led states. Go whine about your own ilk lemming.

AAAAND?

New Jersey and other frequently traveled palces like the rest of Tri-State area obviously got hit first, while bumble-fuck Indiana got slammed in the second half of the year and by this time treatment methods have improved.

1.5% dead from Covid IS NOT dead from Covid, because it was worse elsewhere before? Is that you retarded argument?

Treatments have no improved

Doctors jsut stopped offing people with ventilators

Sounds like an improvement in treatment dumb-dumb.

If doing nothing improves the treatment.....Again that's not improving the treatment

That's stopping irrational treatments

It probably has slightly improved. But the real problem in Italy and NY was the ventilators.

Treatment is what patient gets.

By your own words, what patients got has improved. Stop posting nonsence.

If the patient isn't getting anything it's not a treatment

*big brain*

"they improved teh treatment they just send you home"

lol

Oh so now getting offed is nothing?

What? Reread what i wrote. It's like you quoted the wrong post but i'm sure you didn't.

If they go from a treatment to no treatment that's not an improvement in treatment.

That's just realizing their treatments are killing people. They'd have to have some alternative strategy that works to say it's improved.

So people with Covid do not need treatment and should not go to the hospital.

Chris Christy was a moron when he went to hospital and ended up in ICU for a week.

Trump was a moron, when he went to Walter Reed and got tons of Covid treatments.

Yep they are all idiots except you, who knows a dirty little secret that the Doc Cabal has - do nothing and you'll be fine.

The only workable treatment we hvae is not approved by the FDA

The monocoloidal antibody, which they call a "convalescent seruM'

Beyond that yea just stay hydrated and if you feel like you can't survive another minute, then go to the hospital. Until then they can do nothing rational for you.

Well I just hope you don't listen to your own crackpot medical theories when you are sick, because guess what, if you call a min before you are dead that is an hour too late to TREAT you.

If i get sick i'll call my ivy league educated kin and get their advice.

Trust me i'll be fine, lol the irony of some pleb worrying about what information i get.

Rich

Their advice will be to go to a fucking hospital if you are having trouble breathing and not wait untill last second. Duh.

You are probably the dumb one in the family am-I-right?

No it won't, lol

My grandpa, their grandpa/father died during routine surgery.

Medical malpractice is also part of your risk profile, you don't go to the hospital for treatment if you know they have no treatment for what you have.

You're better off weathering it at home alone.

And i can just text them my charts it's 2020 yes they can get a very accurate view....If it was needed.

General anasthesia complications do happen, esp in older people. My condolences for the loss of your grandfather but thats not a good reason to now start beliving that there is some mass compiracy by the doctors to kill people.

 

[Briss]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

 

[Briss]

No way!

BUSTED: CDC Inflated COVID Numbers, Accused of Violating Federal Law

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stands accused of violating federal law by inflating Coronavirus fatality numbers, according to stunning information obtained by NATIONAL FILE. CDC illegally inflated the COVID fatality number by at least 1,600 percent as the 2020 presidential...

nationalfile.com

Why would the CDC want to inflate numbers?

LOL

You're right ... no way.

Your nationalfile.com article claims the CDC "stands accused" of falsifying fatality numbers, only when you actually read the article, they're the ones accusing the CDC and nationalfile.com is nothing but a rightwingnut conspiracy site. Even worse, if you actually read the article, their complaint is about PCR testing producing false negatives. That affects the number of cases.

I guess you didn't realize if the number of cases is really lower than what's being reported, that increases the fatality rate.

So tell me the ratio of false negatives to false positives given a cycle threshold of 40?

And why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

It's relative. As the number of cases decreases and the number of deaths remains constant, the fatality rate increases.

Why use a ct of 40 when it is common knowledge that anything over 35 is going to be meaningless?

Oh, and since we've virtually eliminated the flu by wearing masks, are you going to advocate for masks next flu season? Or, are you going to ignore all of those preventable deaths from the flu, and go mask-free, threatening the lives of everyone around you?

I didn't condone using a ct of 40, so argue that with someone else who did. As far as wearing masks to help prevent the spread of the flu, no I would not advocate for that as I never have because there is a vaccine for the flu. Just as I won't be advocating for wearing masks because of covid once the vaccine becomes readily available to all who want it.

Yeah, but since you believe that masking up has virtually eliminated the flu, thereby saving maybe 60,000 lives a year, how could you not agree to wear a mask next year?

Does the "vaccine" prevent infection and transmission? And if not, why are you going to take it?

Because there's a vaccine for the flu. I believe I already said that.

And of course I will get the covid vaccine. Even though there's a slight chance I can get covid anyway, if I do, it will most likely be less severe and fought off more quickly than had I not gotten the vaccine.

But the new experimental "vaccine" has not been shown to prevent transmission. So how are you going to protect everyone from you while you're not wearing a mask?

It's too new to know yet. But it does help the body fight off the virus. So even if exposed to it after being vaccinated, the virus is likelier to be killed off faster, decreasing the chances of transmission.

Yes, you are correct. It is an experimental "vaccine." But are they going to pay you or anyone else for participating in their experiment?

And if this experimental "vaccine" changes your life in a bad way, are they going to do the moral thing and take care of you?

Of course not.

Correct! They will not pay anyone for being a test subject in their experimental vaccine trials. Neither will they compensate you if their experimental "vaccine" trials harm you in a bad way. That must be the worst deal in town!

No, not the worst. Worse would be doing nothing to protect one's self. The vaccinations so far have not been all that harmful. Mostly, there's been some side effects for a day or so. There have been some deaths, but at an infinitesimal level; and even many of those were not confirmed to have been caused by the vaccine.

But on the upside, if I were to contract covid, there's the chance it won't be as bad as had I not been vaccinated and there's the chance it will be less likely I won't spread it. It will take years of studies to determine the benefits of the vaccines.

You're right, it will take years and years to determine the benefits of the "vaccine." And it will also take years and years to determine the side effects. Why do you suppose that only 38% of medical workers are willing to take it? They're waiting for the long term trials to conclude. I estimate that the trials being conducted on the public right now to determine long term effects will take some time.

And the bad news is that it hasn't been shown to prevent transmission. So you might want to stock up on face-diapers and stay away from people.

 

[colfax_m]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

 

[Briss]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

Yeah, I know you do. However, why would you go against Tony's--and many others'--assessment of a cycle threshold of of 40? If the test has shown anything, it has shown that Tony and the FDA had no idea about the false positives that would result from a cycle threshold of 40. But of course we know that Tony actually did have an idea about that. He knew that the cycle threshold was set too high. Lots of people know that. He just thought he'd keep quiet about that.

Now, not to put you at odds with Tony, but why don't you explain to him--not me--why he is wrong and you are right.

 

[danielpalos]

If the patient isn't getting anything it's not a treatment

*big brain*

"they improved teh treatment they just send you home after doing nothing"

lol

Treating the complications from the virus can help survive it.

 

[colfax_m]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

Yeah, I know you do. However, why would you go against Tony's--and many others'--assessment of a cycle threshold of of 40? If the test has shown anything, it has shown that Tony and the FDA had no idea about the false positives that would result from a cycle threshold of 40. But of course we know that Tony actually did have an idea about that. He knew that the cycle threshold was set too high. Lots of people know that. He just thought he'd keep quiet about that.

Now, not to put you at odds with Tony, but why don't you explain to him--not me--why he is wrong and you are right.

Fauci never said that these tests are false positive or meaningless.

He never said that.

That’s the interpretation from internet COVID skeptics. It’s not factual.

 

[Briss]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

Yeah, I know you do. However, why would you go against Tony's--and many others'--assessment of a cycle threshold of of 40? If the test has shown anything, it has shown that Tony and the FDA had no idea about the false positives that would result from a cycle threshold of 40. But of course we know that Tony actually did have an idea about that. He knew that the cycle threshold was set too high. Lots of people know that. He just thought he'd keep quiet about that.

Now, not to put you at odds with Tony, but why don't you explain to him--not me--why he is wrong and you are right.

Fauci never said that these tests are false positive or meaningless.

He never said that.

That’s the interpretation from internet COVID skeptics. It’s not factual.

I see . . .

“…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

Interpret that for those of us who don't understand that Tony was really saying that it's live nucleoids, period.

 

[colfax_m]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

Yeah, I know you do. However, why would you go against Tony's--and many others'--assessment of a cycle threshold of of 40? If the test has shown anything, it has shown that Tony and the FDA had no idea about the false positives that would result from a cycle threshold of 40. But of course we know that Tony actually did have an idea about that. He knew that the cycle threshold was set too high. Lots of people know that. He just thought he'd keep quiet about that.

Now, not to put you at odds with Tony, but why don't you explain to him--not me--why he is wrong and you are right.

Fauci never said that these tests are false positive or meaningless.

He never said that.

That’s the interpretation from internet COVID skeptics. It’s not factual.

I see . . .

“…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

Interpret that for those of us who don't understand that Tony was really saying that it's live nucleoids, period.

I’ve said it many times. Those dead nucleoids aren’t there by chance or accident. They reflect a prior infection.

It’s not meaningless. It means that the infection was present earlier and the person is no longer infectious.

How many times have I said this now?

 

[Briss]

I didn't say you should die--least of all for being rational.

I was clearly replying to a different poster who did indeed say I deserve to die because my opinion on PCR cycle counts does not align with theirs.

Well, to be fair, he didn't say that you should die; he said you deserve to die. I'm sure if you asked him, he would tell you that, while a person might deserve to die, it doesn't go to follow that they should die.

And about that PCR test having a cycle threshold of 40: Why would they do that when anything over 35 is going to be meaningless? I don't think anyone has answered that. Maybe you will.

Disagree. There is no difference in saying someone deserves to die and should die.

I still find fault with saying that this test is meaningless. It’s not.

Yeah, I know you do. However, why would you go against Tony's--and many others'--assessment of a cycle threshold of of 40? If the test has shown anything, it has shown that Tony and the FDA had no idea about the false positives that would result from a cycle threshold of 40. But of course we know that Tony actually did have an idea about that. He knew that the cycle threshold was set too high. Lots of people know that. He just thought he'd keep quiet about that.

Now, not to put you at odds with Tony, but why don't you explain to him--not me--why he is wrong and you are right.

Fauci never said that these tests are false positive or meaningless.

He never said that.

That’s the interpretation from internet COVID skeptics. It’s not factual.

I see . . .

“…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

Interpret that for those of us who don't understand that Tony was really saying that it's live nucleoids, period.

I’ve said it many times. Those dead nucleoids aren’t there by chance or accident. They reflect a prior infection.

It’s not meaningless. It means that the infection was present earlier and the person is no longer infectious.

How many times have I said this now?

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

 

[colfax_m]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

 

[Briss]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

So tell me, why wasn't clinical observation included in the diagnosis of a positive PCR test result.

And I don't recall any of the professional liars telling anyone that a positive test result doesn't mean you're infectious? So, basing a pandemic on such a thing is not professional; it's kind of criminal . . .

And why will you take the "vaccine"? It doesn't stop transmission.

 

[colfax_m]

Correct! The person is no longer infectious. So what does that tell you about calling a noninfectious person a "case"? Kind of misleading, huh?

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

Now you know as well as I do that anyone listening to the daily propaganda about case numbers would infer that a case indicates a sick people. But that's a lie.

So tell me, why wasn't clinical observation included in the diagnosis of a positive PCR test result.

And I don't recall any of the professional liars telling anyone that a positive test result doesn't mean you're infectious? So, basing a pandemic on such a thing is not professional; it's kind of criminal . . .

And why will you take the "vaccine"? It doesn't stop transmission.

It's propaganda to report the number of infections? I think the propaganda is trying to tell people that the testing is false, as this thread is attempting to do.

These are real cases whether they're identified during or after their infectious period.

There's plenty of reason to base a pandemic on what we're seeing, this conversation is little more than a footnote for the deniers to cling to as it suits their agenda.

I already took the vaccine. If all it does is substantially reduce the transmission, that's a considerable benefit. I don't expect anything to ever work 100% of the time. That's not realistic. Saying it won't "stop" the transmission isn't a realistic criticism.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because they were infected with the virus which means they are counted as such. It's not misleading at all. We are trying to count the number of people how have been infected. These people should be included.

The larger the numbers they can get away with claiming, the greater the fearmongering.

 

[colfax_m]

The larger the numbers they can get away with claiming, the greater the fearmongering.

Great. So let’s falsify the numbers so that people don’t know how many cases there are?

That’s not ethical.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Great. So let’s falsify the numbers so that people don’t know how many cases there are?

That’s not ethical.

The one who is defending the exaggeration and scaremongering of #CoronaHoax2020 cases, deaths, and so on, for malicious political purposes, is claiming to be an authority on what is “ethical”. What is wrong with this picture?

Do you have any idea at all how you come across to sane people, trying to lay claim to honesty or ethics?

 

[colfax_m]

Great. So let’s falsify the numbers so that people don’t know how many cases there are?

That’s not ethical.

The one who is defending the exaggeration and scaremongering of #CoronaHoax2020 cases, deaths, and so on, for malicious political purposes, is claiming to be an authority on what is “ethical”. What is wrong with this picture?

Do you have any idea at all how you come across to sane people, trying to lay claim to honesty or ethics?

Because the test indicates they were infected, therefore it’s not exaggerating, it’s reporting results without bias.

What do you propose we do? Falsify the numbers?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because the test indicates they were infected, therefore it’s not exaggerating, it’s reporting results without bias.

What do you propose we do? Falsify the numbers?

It ought to be obvious to any honest person that if numbers are being used to convey a sense of how serious and dangerous the fake #CoronaHoax2020 “pandemic” is supposed to be, then numbers should be used that reflect the number of people with active and contagious infections. Counting cases that are asymptomatic and non-contagious serves only to exaggerate the numbers, to exaggerate the sense of danger.

But then, the whole #CoronaHoax is built on lies and exaggerations, so it's probably pointless to focus on this this tiny portion of the deceit.

 

[AMart]

More like conspiracy fact.

 

[colfax_m]

Because the test indicates they were infected, therefore it’s not exaggerating, it’s reporting results without bias.

What do you propose we do? Falsify the numbers?

It ought to be obvious to any honest person that if numbers are being used to convey a sense of how serious and dangerous the fake #CoronaHoax2020 “pandemic” is supposed to be, then numbers should be used that reflect the number of people with active and contagious infections. Counting cases that are asymptomatic and non-contagious serves only to exaggerate the numbers, to exaggerate the sense of danger.

But then, the whole #CoronaHoax is built on lies and exaggerations, so it's probably pointless to focus on this this tiny portion of the deceit.

It's not an exaggeration because those were legitimate cases, even if they're no longer infectious. The only question is if the reporting indicates the current infected total, which it doesn't and shouldn't. Excluding people from the counts is not scientifically ethical. It attempts to misleadingly downplay the risk. We don't know when they were infected, so the only reasonable thing to do is report them when discovered since that is the only factual date you have.