CDC: Covid is sole cause of death in only 5 percent of cases.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: TXRabbit
Ahhhh. You had me going there with what sounded like fact-based reporting, research and findings until it mentioned something about somebody's political stance. Now it reads as complete bull# to me.

How can the direct quotes, from the CDC, telling docs to list covid as cause of death on death certificates even if it’s only presumed they had covid, be “political?”

I think it's because one of the articles quoted discussions about a Colorado Democratic governor reviewing it. First of all, they weren't attacking that governor and if the governor was reviewing exactly what we are discussing, good on him. I didn't mean any attack on that person in question either. Secondly, even if the article does mention Democrats (or any other party), this shouldn't negate the CDC data.

originally posted by: Madviking

originally posted by: dandandat2
... and we all know that people with pre-existing conditions deserve to die; so why worry about them when shaping covid policies?

Logical fallacy, argumentum ad absurdum.

At no point was such stated, but you are trying to superimpose an argument to poison the well.

The point is that with an average of FOUR additional causes of death listed, or comorbidities, there is strong evidence that some of these deaths may not have been due to Covid but instead these other causes. Almost 13,000 had cause of death listed as accidental injury or poisoning.

If I accidently drink a lethal dose of arsenic but happen to have covid, should it really be listed as a "covid death?"

If I had severe heart disease and already had several heart attacks, then after the third one I contract covid, have another and die, was it really due to covid? Maybe, but in some cases probably not.

There is a difference between death from covid versus death with tested or presumed positive covid. Another thing, in many cases it was admitted that some cases were presumed positive covid cases, not tested positive.

www.factcheck.org...

"The CDC guidance says that officials should report deaths in which the patient tested positive for COVID-19 — or, if a test isn’t available, “if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.” It further indicates that if a “definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.'”

“If we think it’s presumptive … we can go ahead and put down COVID-19,” Jensen said, “or even in some situations, even if it’s negative.” He pointed to the example of a 38-year-old man in Minnesota whose death was attributed to the coronavirus even though he tested negative."

Your argument is all supposition .... "Maybe, but in some cases probably not"

Fact is we live in an unhealthy and overweight society ... while it is easy to sit at ones computer and blame the individual for succumbing to covid 19 because it was their fault for being unhealthy and over weight, society as a whole still has an obligation to protect these people.

a reply to: dandandat2

You are still arguing a straw man here.

I am for protecting at-risk individuals. At no point have I stated it was "their fault." In fact, many of us have stated that a better policy than lockdowns for all would have been isolating high-risk individuals, and helping them with any aid they needed. Many doctors said this. The point is that the covid death counts seem to be over-attributed to include deaths from other causes. Public policy and government transparency requires good data, evidence, and policy decisions, not deception or poor statistics.

Do you suggest authoritarianism for all people not just those at risk or suffering, if we are discussing other diseases or causes of death from substance abuse to car crashes? What about diet and food?

www.cdc.gov... (2019)

Heart disease: 659,041
Cancer: 599,601
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 156,979
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,005
Alzheimer’s disease: 121,499
Diabetes: 87,647
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 51,565
Influenza and pneumonia: 49,783
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 47,511

Do you suggest legislating away all contributing factors to these, even for healthy people or the non-affected?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Madviking

MadViking, your input please...

Take a look at the 2020 deaths table at: jamanetwork.com...

Since 95% of the Covid-19 deaths had 3 or more pre-existing conditions, why aren't the number of deaths from Heart problems, Cancer, Diabetes, Stroke, etc.., LOWER in 2020 than they were before 2020? After all, those conditions ARE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.

Because COVID19 came along and pushed more people with pre-existing conditions over the edge than would have happened in the absence of COVID19. The base rate of death from those causes didn’t change and COVID19 simply added to it.

I guess you couldn’t figure that out.

a reply to: Madviking

You are using facts about one topic to discredit another.


Where the measure taken during covid authoritarian and over reach? Maybe, but providing statistics that show Covid-19 killed the unhealthy and overweight does not prove that claim. How do you know that isolating just the unhealthy would have resulted in less of their deaths?

a reply to: 1947boomer

I'm sure this is the case in a number of situations, but subtracting out these "true cases," what about deaths where someone happened to have covid at the time, or even as the sources stated were assumed to have covid without being tested so? Why would we assume that with 4 other contributing causes, that it is due to covid? They should be more cautious. A great example is the 13000 deaths from accidental injury or poisoning (which I think includes overdoses from drugs) where the person happened to have covid. It isn't quality or accurate data analysis to include all of those in the covid death count.

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: Madviking

You are using facts about one topic to discredit another.


Where the measure taken during covid authoritarian and over reach? Maybe, but providing statistics that show Covid-19 killed the unhealthy and overweight does not prove that claim. How do you know that isolating just the unhealthy would have resulted in less of their deaths?

Most quarantines historically isolated the sick, not the whole world. That global lockdown policy, for a disease with a 99.5%+ survival rate, destroyed global economies and cast over 100 million new people into extreme poverty. I haven't even gotten to the cost-benefit analysis yet of these policies, but I will probably in a second thread.

Isolating the sick, and the high risk, would have protected the high risk and the healthy. There is little evidence that the lockdowns worked at all.

Moreover, the statistics strongly suggest that deaths were over-attributed to Covid to include deaths that were potentially due to other causes.

a reply to: Madviking

Thanks for posting this information Madviking.

It's fun to watch the roaches on this website scurry away when the light comes on.

As for my take on it, the reporting was obviously fraudulent when I started hearing about car accident victims that tested positive for covid being put on the covid death tolls.

One other thing, kudos to you to responding to people with logic and facts.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Madviking

MadViking, your input please...

Take a look at the 2020 deaths table at: jamanetwork.com...

Since 95% of the Covid-19 deaths had 3 or more pre-existing conditions, why aren't the number of deaths from Heart problems, Cancer, Diabetes, Stroke, etc.., LOWER in 2020 than they were before 2020? After all, those conditions ARE PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.

Because COVID19 came along and pushed more people with pre-existing conditions over the edge than would have happened in the absence of COVID19. The base rate of death from those causes didn’t change and COVID19 simply added to it.

I guess you couldn’t figure that out.

All you did was confirm what was pointed out earlier.... that the person who died of heart disease and Covid-19 was counted TWICE in the overall death statistics.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, those cases made me question too. Those, and like the source I posted them admitting they even put as covid "assumed covid cases" where it wasn't tested. I'm like really, you are just gonna slap some covid on that death certificate?

As to the scurrying, some usual suspects are mysteriously absent.

originally posted by: litterbaux
a reply to: Madviking

Thanks for posting this information Madviking.

It's fun to watch the roaches on this website scurry away when the light comes on.

As for my take on it, the reporting was obviously fraudulent when I started hearing about car accident victims that tested positive for covid being put on the covid death tolls.

One other thing, kudos to you to responding to people with logic and facts.

a reply to: Madviking

"Lies, damn lies & statistics" - defines 2020 perfectly. No bastard died of anything except the Rona. Hit by bus - Rona. Drowned at sea - Rona.

Nurses dancing in the corridor was the first clue to the deception at hand, global lockdowns of plebs whilst the elite laughed was the 2nd clue.

T'was a Bioweapon designed to bring on globalization and erode freedoms in every country practicing any form of democracy - and the liberal hive minds in each country did the work of the elites due to being heavily brainwashed because they hated Orange Man Bad so cleaved to the Main Stream Media to placiate their weak and pathetic egos.

This virus is bad enough without inflating all the figures. It is worse than the flu. In conjunction with other seasonal illnesses it can be deadly. Just like half of the deaths by the flu are actually pneumonia coupled with the flu.

This virus may be wimpy for most people, but for some people it is very dangerous. But they went about this covid response all wrong, they should have focused on protecting the ones most at risk...that would have saved the taxpayers trillions of dollars. They could have paid the healthcare workers more to stay secluded for a while till a decent vaccine came out to protect those at high risk, sort of like how people at risk get the pneumonia vaccine.

a reply to: Madviking

My question to all of you. Besides main stream media, are you seeing the narrative blessed upon us by the programmers?

I for one am seeing an awakening. People aren't going to fall for this again, no matter how hard they try to push it.

Are you seeing this too?

originally posted by: KansasGirl

How can the direct quotes, from the CDC, telling docs to list covid as cause of death on death certificates even if it’s only presumed they had covid, be “political?”

From the OP

“[Giroir] acknowledges that the statistics he’s getting from the states are inflated. We found that the governor of Colorado, who was a Democrat, actually did research on this and found he had to get rid of 12% of the deaths that were recorded in the state,” Luetkemeyer said.

That, right there, smells of political slant and unbiased reporting. Why was it necessary to list that? What purpose does it serve relating to the narrative of the story? How is that even relevant to the report?

Again, although seeing what political party someone belongs to might validate the information for some, for me it makes me skeptical as to the direction of the content. I was merely expressing that viewpoint

originally posted by: TXRabbit

originally posted by: KansasGirl

How can the direct quotes, from the CDC, telling docs to list covid as cause of death on death certificates even if it’s only presumed they had covid, be “political?”

From the OP

“[Giroir] acknowledges that the statistics he’s getting from the states are inflated. We found that the governor of Colorado, who was a Democrat, actually did research on this and found he had to get rid of 12% of the deaths that were recorded in the state,” Luetkemeyer said.

That, right there, smells of political slant and unbiased reporting. Why was it necessary to list that? What purpose does it serve relating to the narrative of the story? How is that even relevant to the report?

Again, although seeing what political party someone belongs to might validate the information for some, for me it makes me skeptical as to the direction of the content. I was merely expressing that viewpoint

I've already covered the fact that this was a quote about review of data by a governor. In fact, that governor was not cast in a positive nor negative light. It was Democrat by happenstance. If you look at the context of that bolded statement you made, yes there is a political implication. But, the context is that some at that time were claiming that only right wingers questioned any of this, when in fact there were liberals or leftists who did so too. But again, that quote citation had to do with assessing and reducing covid death counts, not political party.

Focus on the argument and data.

I might agree with you if I had launched into some hyper partisan tirade, but I did not to my knowledge.

Here is another article addressing natural immunity. This is old news, they knew this over a year ago but now have more information as to how long it could protect us. Newer evidence shows that the most common type of cold also gives us quick acting protection too. I think it was the Rhinovirus and there is also evidence that some other types of common cold viruses also protect us. Tack that to people's knowledge of what food chemistries fights viruses and natural cravings if the immune system to brain communication is proper and it is why ninety seven percent of people do not get covid from the virus.

You may think I am like a record skipping, saying the same thing over and over, but unless I see strong logical evidence to counteract my research of real research articles, I am not going to change my mind. I will also admit I am wrong if I find the evidence I was looking at was incorrect but by looking at multiple in-depth articles I am pretty sure I am evaluating things right.

Many meds mess up the link between the mind and the immune system though through multiple pathways. Not all communication is chemical, electrical impulses of various frequencies also are involved to trigger the chemical and biological reactions. This has recently been shown in research but I have been saying it for years...the ones who did the research just now proved it, they knew it was happening but could not get funding to research it properly before a few years ago. You cannot do research without money and since big money does not want to cut profit they are not going to fund that kind of research.

originally posted by: Madviking
an average of FOUR additional pre-existing conditions or causes.

Wrong. Comorbidities don't always mean pre-existing.

Covid
Acute respiratory failure
Pneumonia
Asphyxiation
Cardiac arrest

Very typical covid death certificate. One thing leads to another.

a reply to: LordAhriman

All of those comorbidities happen with the seasonal influenza virus. When did we ever shut down the country for the flu?

Last I checked there was an uptick in deaths in 2020 but nothing like the hysteria over Covid would warrent.

You seem like a logical person, was it worth it?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Madviking
an average of FOUR additional pre-existing conditions or causes.

Wrong. Comorbidities don't always mean pre-existing.

Covid
Acute respiratory failure
Pneumonia
Asphyxiation
Cardiac arrest

Very typical covid death certificate. One thing leads to another.

At times I'm sure.

However, I'll reiterate that there is nothing scientific about simply deciding to count all such deaths and situations as covid. Take a step back, outside of the narrative and agenda of the past year.

Here is from the Italian study, citing pre-existing chronic conditions:

"Conclusion
In those deceased in-hospital due to COVID-19 in Italy, disease combinations defined by multiple cardio-respiratory, metabolic, and neuropsychiatric diseases occur more frequently than expected. This finding indicates a need to investigate the possible role of these clinical profiles in the chain of events that lead to death in individuals who have contracted SARS-CoV-2.

Background
Within the first year since its inception, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been responsible for over 2 million premature deaths, particularly among older individuals [1,2,3]. Italy is among the countries with the highest excess mortality [4, 5]; as of December 16th, 2020, 63,573 persons had died of COVID-19 with a mean age of 80 years [5]. Most persons who have died of COVID-19 were affected by multimorbidity, the co-occurrence of two or more chronic conditions in the same individual [6,7,8]. A previous report regarding the pre-infection health status of deceased persons in Italy showed that approximately 84% of these individuals had multimorbidity, and that ischemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation were the most common chronic diseases [5]. Several other studies have confirmed that chronic diseases are associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients [9]. It is also well known that chronic diseases tend to cluster together in the same individual exceeding a level expected by chance alone for several reasons, including shared risk factors and similar pathophysiology [10]. We hypothesized that persons who died from COVID-19 and were affected by multimorbidity had specific disease combinations which co-occurred more frequently than predictable by chance. We aimed to test this hypothesis in a sample of in-patients in Italy with a confirmed diagnosis and related death due to COVID-19."