Is COVID-19 not as dangerous as public health officials have been claiming?

One must wonder if any of the official coronavirus statistics can even be trusted at all.
Thu Aug 27, 2020 - 12:32 pm EST
Featured Image
seamind224 /

August 27, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — If a major flaw were discovered that almost completely discredited the COVID-19 and pneumonia death counts provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is it likely that government public health officials and liberal politicians would admit it? Or, if there were data that suggest that COVID-19 is not nearly as severe as was first propagated, would public health officials admit they were wrong and suggest life return to normal with full sports stadiums, full churches, no masks, and no “social distancing”? Due to the number of lives that have been harmed and the power and money that were gained by public health officials, governors, and other politicians, if either scenario occurred, it is reasonable to suggest such persons would likely not admit the truth.

There is an apparent ongoing major development regarding COVID-19 that either is being deliberately ignored or has been overlooked by public health officials: COVID-19 reportedly continues to spread, yet the locations where it is spreading are not observing the same trend in excess COVID-19 deaths that were reportedly observed in places like New York City, New Jersey, and Massachusetts early in the reported pandemic. There have not been even close to the numbers of reported COVID-19 deaths or pneumonia deaths resulting from the reported June and July “spike” or “surge” in COVID-19 cases throughout the U.S.

Some may suggest that the reported recent cases of COVID-19 are in younger people than those reported to have caused thousands of deaths in places like New York and New Jersey. Such persons imply that more COVID-19 cases in older persons will result in more deaths. That is not necessarily true; a brief comparison of New Jersey and New York (where COVID-19 was reported to be spreading early) to California and Florida (where COVID-19 was more recently reported to be spreading) may partially refute such an argument. Locations where “spikes” reportedly recently occurred are actually reporting more COVID-19 cases in older persons with fewer deaths than were reported in New York City and New Jersey.

As of this writing, New Jersey reports 43,849 COVID-19 cases and 12,637 COVID-19 deaths among those 65 and older. New York City reports 52,901 COVID-19 cases and 14,005 deaths among those 65 and older. California reports 71,455 COVID-19 cases and 8,870 COVID-19 deaths among those 65 and older. Florida reports 87,547 COVID-19 cases and 6,948 “deaths involving COVID-19” among those 65 and older. California and Florida both report more cases than New York City and New Jersey among those 65 and older, but both New York City and New Jersey report almost double the number of COVID-19 deaths in the same age group.

New Jersey’s and New York City’s COVID-19 counts were the main statistics used to cause panic throughout the rest of the country early in the reported outbreak. They were also used (and continue to be used) to support draconian removal of freedoms and trillions of dollars in giveaways, including to government entities. But the trends in “COVID-19 deaths” are very different now. Notably, the excessive deaths were reported during the lockdowns, at a time when it may have been more difficult to prove that the excessive deaths (and excessive hospitalizations) in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts may not have been occurring.

This leads to several questions, which most people would probably rather not ask. First, is it possible that certain entities deliberately falsified death count totals in New York City, New Jersey, and elsewhere, by falsely reporting large numbers in March, April, and May? One of the biggest government scandals in the history of the United States, the FBI’s use of false information and apparent deliberate deception against the president and persons associated with him, provides sufficient basis for asking such questions. It is reasonable to expect similar establishment-type persons to be employed in other government entities. It may or may not be relevant that since 2015, employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have reportedly given 8,000 donations to Democrat entities (like “Biden for President”) compared to only five donations to Republican entities.

The list of potential motives for government or public health entities falsifying data could be extensive. One need only follow the potential money and power gained by misleading America about COVID-19. Even the FBI, the entity that may be responsible for investigating potential fraud, may profit off of COVID-19 (approximately $1.8 billion for a new building; Americans should want to know what types of technologies, ruses, covert FBI-owned businesses, or otherwise illegal activity the FBI might use such an expensive new building for).

This is not to say that fraud or deliberate falsification of COVID-19 information actually did occur. Due to the following argument, though, one has to mention the possibility.

PETITION: No to radical mandatory mask mandates! Sign the petition here.

Different types of scientific misconduct have been described; one of those is broadly termed falsification and is defined in the following manner:

manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record

The data presented by the CDC is a type of research, and it can be shown that the CDC and others are not accurately representing the research record — specifically, evidence suggests that COVID-19 is being inaccurately represented to be more severe than it may be. Some introductory medical information is necessary prior to explaining the apparent misrepresentation of the severity of COVID-19.

It has been suggested that most adults will experience an average of two to three common colds every year. This means that when an adult dies, it is quite possible (and in many cases highly likely) that an adult will die with a common cold. It is probably not a surprise if a frail elderly person dies with a common cold; it may actually be more of a surprise if a frail elderly person does not die with a common cold.

There are many viruses that may cause the common cold; one of the most common causes is human rhinovirus, but coronaviruses may also cause the common cold. Since it is normal for most adults to experience two to three common colds every year, and since coronaviruses can cause up to 30% of those common colds, one could reasonably suggest that during a normal year, there could be more than 120 million “coronavirus cases” in America.

There are no scientific studies that tested every deceased individual in America for the possibility of having a common cold–causing virus — like the coronavirus — prior to their deaths. But, because adults may have two to three colds every year, since coronaviruses can cause up to 30% of those common colds, and because more than 2 million adults normally die in America every year, for the sake of this example, hypothetically, say 250,000 people die every year with a common cold caused by a coronavirus.

Would it be truthful, then, to say 250,000 people are “killed by the common cold” or “killed by a coronavirus” every year? No, such a statement would not be truthful; it would be a misrepresentation of the data. In fact, if such information were propagated for multiple months by one public health official — let alone by multiple public health officials at numerous public health entities in America — one would rightly say those people were either incompetent or fraudulent.

The most recent reporting of “deaths involving COVID-19” may be mostly persons who died with a positive COVID-19 test rather than persons who died “from” or “due to” COVID-19. But public health officials are not clearly stating this in their representation of the severity of COVID-19; this indicates the possibility of falsification, a type of scientific misconduct mentioned above.

Some may wonder why this writer and others continue to harp on the falsified or misleading COVID-19 death counts. One reason is that the death count is wrongly used to support legal decisions like the declaration of a public health emergency, which is then used to support the draconian lockdowns and remove many rights and freedoms from Americans. The resulting draconian lockdowns from a potentially wrongly labeled public health emergency may have resulted in thousands of deaths and other serious problems themselves. Such false information would have had gravely harmful consequences and would need to be brought to light.

And many people want their lives to get back to normal; if there is information (for instance, information showing that COVID-19 is not even close to being as severe to what was originally reported) that supports the return to normality, then that information should also be published and propagated. Such information appears to have been available for months now.

COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the virus named SARS-CoV-2. The “SARS” in “SARS-CoV-2” stands for “severe acute respiratory syndrome” (which is sometimes also referred to as acute respiratory distress syndrome or adult respiratory distress syndrome). When the virus was first reportedly discovered, the panic and hysteria propagated by public health officials were supposedly due to their belief that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would cause millions of people to experience pneumonia, “severe acute respiratory distress syndrome,” and death. During the initial outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, the CDC was suggesting that the expected sequence of events leading to death in COVID-19 patients would be pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

To be considered a severe case of COVID-19, the CDC requires “clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).” It is unlikely that non-severe COVID-19 cases (cases without pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome) would cause death; in other words, true COVID-19 deaths would likely require “clinical or radiographic evidence” of pneumonia or ARDS.

Elsewhere, the CDC makes a similar point, implying that a true COVID-19 death would include pneumonia or ARDS, when explaining to physicians how they are expected to fill out a death certificate. The CDC acknowledges that in the cases where “COVID-19 played a role in the death” of a person, the “life threatening conditions” (and therefore the potentially “death causing conditions”) expected to be observed are pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. A reputable source used by medical professionals explains the same medical fact:

The major morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is largely due to acute viral pneumonitis that evolves to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

The main point to keep in mind, according to the reputable source and even the CDC, is that if COVID-19 causes death, the deaths will mostly be due to lung problems known as pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. That is, a true COVID-19 death would be expected to result in pneumonia or ARDS, and the certificate of death for a true COVID-19 death would likely then include at least both COVID-19 and pneumonia or both COVID-19 and ARDS.

A simplification may be helpful. If SARS-CoV-2 causes an infection, it usually infects the lungs. The infection is referred to as COVID-19. Most people do not die from COVID-19. If a person really dies from or due to COVID-19, there are expected sequences of events and conditions that occur in the lungs before a person dies. The sequence expected is as follows:

1) COVID-19 infection

2) Pneumonia

3) Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

4) Death

So if the CDC and other public health officials were to accurately represent the severity of the currently spreading SARS virus, SARS-CoV-2, according to their own criteria, they would be looking at incidences of pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Calculating the number of people whose death certificates list them as having died from COVID-19 and pneumonia or COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome would provide a more accurate description of the severity of COVID-19 (rather than including all of those who presumably died from COVID-19 or those who died with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, which may result in falsely overstating the severity of COVID-19).

How many “deaths involving COVID-19” have been reportedly due to “acute respiratory distress syndrome,” then? According to the CDC, as of this writing, 21,054 death certificates out of 153,504 “deaths involving COVID-19” included the “contributing cause” of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome “mentioned in conjunction with deaths involving COVID-19” on the death certificates (the CDC and other public health officials have been using words pertaining to COVID-19 in a misleading and unclear manner, so the “scare quotes,” while annoying, are necessary to indicate others’ use of misleading and/or ambiguous words).

That is a big deal. SARS-CoV-2 — the “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2” virus — has reportedly resulted in less than 22,000 deaths due to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome.

As other articles noted, one should not trivialize life and death; this article is not making light of those deaths. Instead, it is evaluating the statistics to make the point that COVID-19 may not be as severe as many may have untruthfully stated.

Moreover, the number of deaths involving COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome — fewer than 22,000 out of 154,000 — suggests that what was being reported as the “COVID-19 death count” of approximately 154,000 or more could be wrong by a large amount.

As stated previously, one could also view the statistics of deaths involving COVID-19 and pneumonia to determine the real severity of SARS-CoV-2. Before listing those statistics, it should be noted that Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of the CDC, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wrote about a “case definition of COVID-19 requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia”; such a definition of “COVID-19” along with the potential that higher numbers of untested persons have been infected but unharmed by SARS-CoV-2, they explained, would suggest that “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza…or a pandemic influenza.”

Considering the COVID-19 death rate from the standpoint of deaths certified as being caused by both pneumonia and COVID-19 may also shed more light on the topic, then. Oddly, though, instead of being straightforward and listing pneumonia statistics individually, the CDC obscures the number of COVID-19-related pneumonia statistics.

This seems to be a big deal that requires an explanation. Instead of listing pneumonia due to COVID-19 or viral pneumonia individually, the CDC’s pneumonia statistics combine viral pneumonia with various types of influenza (COVID-19 is not influenza) diagnoses, various types of bacterial pneumonias (COVID-19 is not a bacteria), pneumonia due to Streptococcus pneumoniae, pneumonia due to Hemophilus influenzae, and pneumonia due to other infectious organisms. Combining all of those misrepresents the number of diagnoses of pneumonia due to SARS-CoV-2. Prior to the reported spreading of COVID-19 in America, there were 4.5 million outpatient and emergency room visits every year due to pneumonia. So, just as it is possible for a frail elderly person to die “with the common cold,” it is not unreasonable to suggest that, due to the prevalence of pneumonia, an elderly person may die “with pneumonia” not caused by COVID-19.

In other words, the CDC’s combining of all types of pneumonia in COVID-19 statistics may be misleading. Even so, the CDC reports that 64,465 death certificates have “mentioned” pneumonia “in conjunction with deaths involving COVID-19.”

This is also a big deal. Even after potentially misrepresenting and overstating the pneumonia statistic by including various types of influenza and bacterial pneumonia, the total number is still less than half of what are listed as “deaths involving COVID-19.” If a true COVID-19 death required a diagnosis of pneumonia, and if fewer than 65,000 or so COVID-19 deaths include that pneumonia diagnosis, then the COVID-19 death count could be inflated by close to 100,000 deaths.

Consider this: if the actual death count of COVID-19 is somewhere around 20,000, or even 65,000 people, would governors and public health officials have a significant basis for their continued draconian restrictions, including their restrictions on sporting events or gathering for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Would those numbers even be high enough to label COVID-19 as a public health emergency, epidemic, or pandemic?

Either way, evaluating the above data from the CDC’s COVID-19 severity criteria suggests that COVID-19 is not nearly as severe as public health officials have been claiming. And, with the recent COVID-19 and pneumonia death statistics being significantly lower than the excess deaths which were reported in New York City and New Jersey early in the reported pandemic, from an honest and objective scientific standpoint, one must wonder if any of the statistics can even be trusted at all.

  anthony fauci, centers for disease control, coronavirus, fraud, police state, robert redfield, statistics

Keep this news available to you and millions more

Your gift will spread truth, defeat lies, and save lives

Share this article