Rewriting the present

I’ve gotten better this year in preserving information – I download important videos, and if an article I read seems important, I copy it and print it. Thus did I save an article entitled A Closer Look at US Deaths Due to Covid-19. I have it on my computer, and this link recovers it from the Wayback Machine.  It first appeared on the Johns Hopkins website, but was deemed inflammatory, that is, truthful and honest research, and ergo not allowed in our Fourth Reich. I reprint it in full beneath the fold. I also screen-capped the graphs and inserted them into the Word document that I used to save the article. That may be grounds for arrest. (The screen-cap yields a blurry quality – I urge you read the Wayback version while available.)

Here is the money shot:

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.

And we knew this here – CDC ordered doctors and others to classify most deaths that came anywhere near a PCR test as COVID-19, and to label deaths as that even if it were based on mere suspicion. I have said from the outset that the true number of COVID-19 deaths is zero. I stand by that. There is no virus.

During the ten month period ending today, the US has not experienced a rise in deaths over any other year. Things are normal, the same number of people are dying from the same causes as before. This massive hoax has three elements, two discussed here (no virus and PCR as the means by which they create the illusion of one), along with the third, lying by the CDC as to the number and causes of deaths.

Give it a read – it is reasonably short and easily digested. I have to wonder now if Genevieve Briand has disappeared, joining Dr. Kary Mullis on some island somewhere. Notice at the end that I have italicized words from Poorna Dharmasena, whose purpose appears to have been to discredit Briand’s work even when it was published on the Hopkins website. Even though she is correct in her assertions, that there is no pandemic, never has been, it is “irrelevant,” according to Poorna. It is still a dangerous disease.

He is lying about that, and his addendum to the article is technically known as “weasel words,” probably inserted by an editor without Briand’s knowledge.

(h/t: Brandon)

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

By YANNI GU | November 22, 2020


(“After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September.”)

According to new data, the U.S. currently ranks first in total COVID-19 cases, new cases per day and deaths. Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins, critically analyzed the effect of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in her webinar titled “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data.”

From mid-March to mid-September, U.S. total deaths have reached 1.7 million, of which 200,000, or 12% of total deaths, are COVID-19-related. Instead of looking directly at COVID-19 deaths, Briand focused on total deaths per age group and per cause of death in the U.S. and used this information to shed light on the effects of COVID-19.

She explained that the significance of COVID-19 on U.S. deaths can be fully understood only through comparison to the number of total deaths in the United States.

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” Briand said.

Briand also noted that 50,000 to 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after COVID-19, indicating that this number of deaths was normal long before COVID-19 emerged. Therefore, according to Briand, not only has COVID-19 had no effect on the percentage of deaths of older people, but it has also not increased the total number of deaths.

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.

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.


(“Graph depicts the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018.”)

This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.


(“Graph depicts the total decrease in deaths by various causes, including COVID-19.”)

The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.

“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 an interview with The News-Letter, Briand addressed the question of whether COVID-19 deaths can be called misleading since the infection might have exacerbated and even led to deaths by other underlying diseases.

“If [the COVID-19 death toll] was not misleading at all, what we should have observed is an increased number of heart attacks and increased COVID-19 numbers. But a decreased number of heart attacks and all the other death causes doesn’t give us a choice but to point to some misclassification,” Briand replied.

In other words, the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the U.S. is considered problematic only when it increases the total number of deaths or the true death burden by a significant amount in addition to the expected deaths by other causes. Since the crude number of total deaths by all causes before and after COVID-19 has stayed the same, one can hardly say, in Briand’s view, that COVID-19 deaths are concerning.

Briand also mentioned that more research and data are needed to truly decipher the effect of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States.

Throughout the talk, Briand constantly emphasized that although COVID-19 is a serious national and global problem, she also stressed that society should never lose focus of the bigger picture — death in general.

The death of a loved one, from COVID-19 or from other causes, is always tragic, Briand explained. Each life is equally important and we should be reminded that even during a global pandemic we should not forget about the tragic loss of lives from other causes.

According to Briand, the over-exaggeration of the COVID-19 death number may be due to the constant emphasis on COVID-19-related deaths and the habitual overlooking of deaths by other natural causes in society.

During an interview with The News-Letter after the event, Poorna Dharmasena, a master’s candidate in Applied Economics, expressed his opinion about Briand’s concluding remarks.

“At the end of the day, it’s still a deadly virus. And over-exaggeration or not, to a certain degree, is irrelevant,” Dharmasena said.

When asked whether the public should be informed about this exaggeration in death numbers, Dharmasena stated that people have a right to know the truth. However, COVID-19 should still continuously be treated as a deadly disease to safeguard the vulnerable population.

22 thoughts on “Rewriting the present

    1. Hey, Horst:

      I appreciate your sentence, “This thing is designed to blow, my impression for months.” I do, too. But I don’t want to jump to conclusions about what you mean by it. Would you take a moment to unpack your impression?



      1. @Paso Truth is shouted from the rooftops, for a long time, just take decades old cable TV documentaries about satanism and masons. Today, censorship is not as effective as it could be. There must be some kind of correction, some system maintenance. However, the damage to small businesses and people is done, the agenda got further. The left is the scapegoat.
        Maybe it is bigger, and they do Hegelian dialectic, in this case, the true NWO will look much nicer than what they make us expect these days. Going into the light, people shall love the beast…

        The story behind this – Dr. Francesco De Meo, a jurist, is president of the institute which made that study, and in charge of the Helios hospital concern.
        The industry looses money, beds are reserved for Corona patients, etc.
        So they put that study out, showing there is no difference to years before.

        But, they don’t bite the hand feeding them. They put the numbers out, politics got to deal with the truth, but the study comes with affirmation:

        IQM distanziert sich von Behauptung: „Die Analyse des Leistungsgeschehens in 421 IQM Mitgliedskrankenhäusern widerlegt eine COVID-19-Pandemie von nationaler Tragweite“

        IQM distances itself from the claim: “The analysis of the performance in 421 IQM member hospitals refutes a COVID-19 pandemic of national scope”


  1. Excellent, MT. What I find incredibly interesting and revealing are the comments attached to the retraction post (not the original article dated 11/22): “A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19”
    By YANNI GU | November 27, 2020 It is worth the time to read through the comments that are still available to read online at the above link (for now). For those (like MT and I) who take note of potentially “spooky” numbers/dates: the webinar by Briand was presented on 11/11 and the relevant article (since retracted) was posted subsequently on 11/22. Keep in mind, this year, 2020, represents a 22. This may be more of a stretch, but I just noticed that the day the article was retracted was November 27 (2+7), which can be represented by 11/9 or 9/11. A further stretch – In numerology, 11/27/2020, is 11/22 (as 0s and 9s = 0/null) Hmmmmm…


    1. You’re right – the comments are very interesting, especially the one at the outset talking about death trends in the US – 2009 to present increasing 1-2% per year, 2020 no different. He thinks perhaps the 2008 recession bent the curve higher.

      Spook numbers … they trouble me too. I went through all of the in a long article about the 24 deaths in a Kirkland nursing home way back when, and did not do anything with them as the month of March was loaded with dates that could be interpreted that way. November too, along with September. I didn’t think it would be too convincing. But 11/22 is a stickler with me, the date of JFK’s and Dave McGowan’s fake deaths.



        If you calculate (add numbers) in (Pythagorean) numerology, you can see in the examples (see link above) that even when you do not include the 9 digits (or any digits that add to 9), you will still end up with the same sum. So, numerologists can “cheat” (simplify the addition process) by nullifying all the 9s that appear. In numerology, all sums remain as a single digit, except 11, 22 and 33. They stay as is, as you may know – the master numbers. Hope this helps to explain. I am not sure you will find this information online. When I was trained by professional astrologists/numerologists in the 1990s, this was a little numbers trick that was taught and just stuck with me – because I don’t like math, and it helped me to simplify the process by nullifying the nines, if there was a long string of digits. (There are other methods of numerology, like Chaldean, but I did not learn those systems.) This does NOT mean that there is no significance to the number 9, as the nine holds its own vibrational signature.



    In the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings.

    In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assesses w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field.

    The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.”

    Unbiased scientists, probably ashamed of their own kind also calling themselves scientists, made a proper peer review of the PCR testing method. So far, it appears to be this year’s best read. The entire hoax and its narrative falls apart by this dissemination of true knowledge in this particular field of expertise. Recommended read for anybody ready to grasp the essence of this hoax on a technical and methodological level.


  3. Why is it all via Yanni Gu? Did Briand not publish anywhere directly? Or maybe it’s a private academic paper that costs money?


      1. Thanks Uno, I was skimming and missed that background on Briand.

        So then Gu summarized her talk and posted his piece on Johns Hopkins site? And they took it down as well?

        I wonder what is Gu’s title or credential, just for more context? Apologies if I missed it somewhere above.


  4. I wonder if the paper was an attempt to show Hopkins has some credible people on staff but that knowing the thing would be shot down, they created or volunteered someone to be the author. She was either retiring or was a fictional character, but she did not need to be a public figure anymore if she is real. The point is to get something with the Hopkins imprimatur on the record, hoping that ‘science’ will survive the backlash once people crawl out from under their fears and howl for blood. (I do think that will happen- fatigue is far more convincing than prima facie evidence for most mouth breathers and they are dragging their butts from what I’m seeing.)
    I think of the Stauffenberg plot where the German high command knew historians would ask why the generals never did anything to stop Hitler. I don’t think the plot was real, but they saved some face, allowing someone to ‘author’ the plot and then retire him at the hands of ‘loyalists’ who knew the plotters absences had to be accounted for by ‘execution’.
    Poorna Dharmasena may have been assigned the role of executioner to keep the Hopkins hand outs coming from the government enablers while still having the institution try something to get the truth out.


    1. “Has some credible people”. “Save face”…. What, among our tiny set? : )

      I was surprised to hear local Bham talk radio hosts covering it yesterday… It must be out at NewsMax or some outlets like that. Now they do represent a significant chunk of “conservative” public opinion.

      But both hosts I heard, while using it to bash Dem and media covid hype, masterfully downplayed the real significance of the study. They’re too smart to miss its implication I’m sure – MAYBE they got spun themselves by their source only having an excerpt and spinning it. But more likely, for some reason they are playing a role of only mild opposition to the hoax – more “reasonable” than the Dems, but still accepting “it’s real.” They could have made some real hay w that paper if they had wanted to.

      I’m still baffled as to how the factional players in all this operate. This seems to be a controlled release of some sort, but it’s like unravelling a piece of spaghetti back to its source.

      MM laid out a new vs old guard description in his election paper… So where would Briand fit in that framework?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. If they want it technically “out there” but still obscure and swamped by disinformation?

          I just say it looks controlled bc of the numerology markers and being picked up in the conservative pundit sphere… But maybe she’s acting independently, I know nothing about her beyond this paper and comments.


  5. according to the CDC’s Technical notes:

    ‘Finally, the estimates of excess deaths reported here may not be due to COVID-19, either directly or indirectly. The pandemic may have changed mortality patterns for other causes of death. Upward trends in other causes of death (e.g., suicide, drug overdose, heart disease) may contribute to excess deaths in some jurisdictions. Future analyses of cause-specific excess mortality may provide additional information about these patterns.’

    Maybe next year the ‘future analyses’ will be available.

    From the same site under Mortality Outcomes:
    ‘These estimates can also provide information about deaths that may be indirectly related to COVID-19. For example, if deaths due to other causes may increase as a result of health care shortages due to COVID-19. Additionally, deaths from all causes excluding COVID-19 were also estimated.

    Seems to me that the algorithm they use is weighted toward anything covid related ignoring the rest. I will not be shocked if the final # exceeds all other deaths and adds up to either 666, 1111, 22, 33…….


Leave a Reply to UnoDosTres Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s