John Hopkins study taken down, Covid impact exaggerated

Several sites picked up on this John Hopkins study that was taken down.

Through the way back machine, the entire article is available at the link above.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.

Covid deaths simply replaced the deaths from other causes that would normally occur.

"All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary," Briand concluded.

In my office, we have had 5 cases out of 100 people, 4 of those 5 were over 50. None of them went to the hospital and all have returned to work.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Covid is a bad cold.

It's literally the whole dihydrogen monoxide is the most dangerous chemical in the world responsible for the most deaths thing. If you say water it's less scary.

Make the name sound scary. People become scared.

If you say, there's a particularly bad cold going around that is especially bad on the elderly, nobody cares.

You say, there's a highly infectious novel coronavirus going around raging through nursing homes.

Everyone #s themselves and goes running for toilet paper.

There's novel coronavirii every year. It's why every year, people get colds.

originally posted by: dug88

Covid is a bad cold.

The Election year is basically over and now we do not need to inflate everything in an OMB event.

I actually disagree with you...A bad cold is worst than COVID...the vast majority get hardly nothing and those that do get something its like 2 days of symptoms...lets say for 99% is like the case of the sniffles.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah fair point. I guess, bad if you're over 75 would have been better. But pretty much, this whole thing is because they decided to name this year's particular coronavirus strain and make a big deal out of it.

originally posted by: dug88
Yeah fair point. I guess, bad if you're over 75 would have been better. But pretty much, this whole thing is because they decided to name this year's particular coronavirus strain and make a big deal out of it.

Even over 70 is disappearing quickly. There was a level of seriousness at first being a Nuevo virus, but we are much better taking care of the critically ill not counting drug/vaccine treatments. Trump back on his feet running laps after what 4 days kind of shot a hole in the super bad category of it all...lol

Anybody can see this looking at the numbers from CDC, I was asking about this months ago but of course was told "We can never know how many lives were saved by ruining civilization, oops I mean sheltering in place".

Yup. I find it interesting that they reason they took it down was because they claimed the study was being misused... note, they didn't say the findings in the study are inaccurate. In other words, someone told them to take the study down because it wasn't supporting the narrative being pushed.

Covid is propaganda and mass hysteria. I want to know what the real reason is for the shut downs. We aren't being told everything.

originally posted by: ATruGod
Anybody can see this looking at the numbers from CDC, I was asking about this months ago but of course was told "We can never know how many lives were saved by ruining civilization, oops I mean sheltering in place".

Yup. I'd been asking since April what the data said about OTHER deaths as I suspected we'd see a decrease in things like heart attacks, strokes, etc because all those deaths would be labeled as Covid.

I have thought since the beginning that JHU was complicit in this charade. Spent tons of time researching but never found anything conclusive so said nothing. There is much more to this.

a reply to: Edumakated

Whatever it is, I don't believe there is any legitimate reason for it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

Whatever it is, I don't believe there is any legitimate reason for it.

Many of the numbers they keep flashing on CNN etc make zero sense in they have no real reason other than to push some high number and call it bad. Take 13 million cases.... Its more like 100+ million lol.. That is 13 million tested...If you have low or zero symptoms then you do not get tested, you do not call anyone... It is suggest 8x or more is closer to the truth.

The funny part is we want to see 200 million in the cases department as that would say we are at herd immunity...

263,000 deaths...compared to what? We are in like our 3rd flu season in months and this count is done totally different than a normal flu season in they are not even comparable.

So we know a couple of key factors... this virus is transmitted about 2.5x that of the normal flu and if they say 60 million is a normal flu season during 4 to 5 months would we not be 60 X 2.5 = 150 million not even counting 9 months compared to like 5.

263k / 150 million is .0017% as a normal flu season is .001%. This is even counting the 40k that died in care facilities after a few Governors forced infected people back into them.

I haven't ever texted my husband about Covid...but I just shared a quote from an article about this with him.

Within 15 min Google sent him a notification requesting he allow ---Notifications to be sent from The Michigan Dept of Health daily about Covid so he is getting the Correct Up to date info...

Scanning our texts right out in the open.

originally posted by: igloo
I have thought since the beginning that JHU was complicit in this charade. Spent tons of time researching but never found anything conclusive so said nothing. There is much more to this.

It is pretty clear to me that facebook / twitter / google / youtube are being pressured to censor Covid information that may not support a narrative. Personally, I don't think it is just "liberal bias" but they've been directed by TPTB to keep stuff under wraps.

It is clear that any medical professional / university that dares look at the data with objective eyes is being told to stop asking questions.

I don't know what is going on, but it is pretty obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of data analytics that the numbers are not adding up and the lock downs are an over reaction.

a reply to: Edumakated

It doesn't even take a rudimentary understanding of data analytics. It just takes a rational brain to understand that what they're telling you doesn't add up to reality in so many ways.

It's like a test run to see how stupid public schools have made people.

It wasn't a study it was an article in the Student newspaper by a non medical professional.

Reasons for its removal are given below.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.

In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently.

Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

Briand was quoted in the article as saying, “All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.” This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years. According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19. Additionally, Briand presented data of total U.S. deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic. This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19; an increase in excess deaths is not represented in these proportionalities because they are offered as percentages, not raw numbers.

Briand also claimed in her analysis that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may be incorrectly categorized as COVID-19-related deaths. However, COVID-19 disproportionately affects those with preexisting conditions, so those with those underlying conditions are statistically more likely to be severely affected and die from the virus.

Because of these inaccuracies and our failure to provide additional information about the effects of COVID-19, The News-Letter decided to retract this article. It is our duty as a publication to combat the spread of misinformation and to enhance our fact-checking process. We apologize to our readers.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The point of the paper is that the people who were still going to die from those things would still die from them. And people who would die from COVID would die from it, with or without the comorbidities. COVID would not perfectly cancel out deaths from comorbidities like it has.

I'll cite again the first person in this area to die from COVID. He was taken to the hospital for a cardiac event, and was tested and discovered to have been positive posthumously. Suddenly, he was a COVID death, not a heart attack.

Whelp, this year has made my laughing at confused conspiracy theorists a whole lot more muted.

On the other hand, if this hasn't been an organized power grab or drill for some upcoming real apocalypse, then there really are no adults in charge, psychopathic or not.

If I had to bet, I'd go with idiots over archons or Illuminati.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

The point of the paper is that the people who were still going to die from those things would still die from them. And people who would die from COVID would die from it, with or without the comorbidities. COVID would not perfectly cancel out deaths from comorbidities like it has.

I'll cite again the first person in this area to die from COVID. He was taken to the hospital for a cardiac event, and was tested and discovered to have been positive posthumously. Suddenly, he was a COVID death, not a heart attack.

As the note above covers people with pre-existing conditions are disproportionately affected. Has much time does covid need to reduce from someone's life span before you think it's a vivid death? Even more interestingly how would you measure that?

Also it wasn't a paper. It was an inaccurate article in a student newspaper.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Does COVID cause heart attacks now?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Does COVID cause heart attacks now?

www.bhf.org.uk...