“We’ve checked your equipment, and we believe you’ll be safe, even though you’re stepping into an alien environment. Remember, the denizens you’ll encounter are congenital tricksters. They live on lies. They eat them. They broadcast them. They worship them in their Hades.” (My notes for “The Underground”)
So once again, we don hazmat suits and enter the mad, mad world of basic COVID lies. For purposes of argument only, we assume a new coronavirus was actually discovered, the diagnostic test is meaningful, and case numbers are also meaningful.
Within that mad world, the amount of fraud is still immense.
As I’ve documented, all sorts of case-number cons are running loose. Little, medium, and large cons. Entering “COVID” on all test results from labs. Oops. Computer error. The PCR test itself spits out false-positives because it lights up like a Christmas tree when it encounters various irrelevant germs. And so forth and so on.
But here is a superhighway version of fake number counting. By definition. Written in stone. Institutionalized. From the twinkle-toe mavens at the CDC, home of numbers, house of cards. Read on.
The revelatory reference is: Children’s Health Defense, July 24, “If COVID Fatalities Were 90.2% Lower, How Would You Feel About Schools Reopening?” By H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, M. Sava, S. Gupta, D. Chong, D. White, J. Nowicki, P. Anderson.
“Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower than it currently is.”
The article is somewhat complex. It should be studied carefully. Here is my main takeaway:
The special CDC guidelines for labeling patients “COVID” are absurd. These rules open the door to falsely inflating case and death numbers. This is more than fiddling with statistics. It’s an institutional and official invitation to create fake cases. Gigantic numbers of them.
The Children’s Health Defense article presents the April 2020 CDC guidelines for diagnosing COVID. There are five sets of criteria presented. Grit your teeth and study this CDC web of deceit:
“April 14th, 2020 – CDC Adopts CSTE Interim-20-ID-01
Title: Standardized surveillance case definition and national notification for 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
VII. Case Definition for Case Classification
1. Narrative: Description of criteria to determine how a case should be classified.
A1. Clinical Criteria At least two of the following symptoms:
* fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s) OR
* At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing OR
* Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following:
* * Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or
* * Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). AND
* * No alternative more likely diagnosis
A2. Laboratory Criteria Laboratory evidence using a method approved or authorized by the FDA or designated authority:
Confirmatory laboratory evidence:
* Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a clinical specimen using a molecular amplification detection test
Presumptive laboratory evidence:
* Detection of specific antigen in a clinical specimen
* Detection of specific antibody in serum, plasma, or whole blood indicative of a new or recent infection (note1)
(note1) serologic methods for diagnosis are currently being defined
A3. Epidemiologic Linkage One or more of the following exposures in the 14 days before onset of symptoms:
* Close contact (note2) with a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19 disease; or
* Close contact (note2) with a person with:
* * clinically compatible illness AND
* * linkage to a confirmed case of COVID-19 disease.
* Travel to or residence in an area with sustained, ongoing community transmission of SARS-CoV2.
* Member of a risk cohort as defined by public health authorities during an outbreak.
(note2) Close contact is defined as being within 6 feet for at least a period of 10 minutes to 30 minutes or more depending upon the exposure. In healthcare settings, this may be defined as exposures of greater than a few minutes or more. Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of exposure that constitutes prolonged exposure and thus a close contact.
A4. Vital Records Criteria A death certificate that lists COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to death.
A5. Case Classifications
Confirmed:
* Meets confirmatory laboratory evidence.
Probable:
* Meets clinical criteria AND epidemiologic evidence with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.
* Meets presumptive laboratory evidence AND either clinical criteria OR epidemiologic evidence.
* Meets vital records criteria with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID19.
1. Criteria to distinguish a new case of this disease or condition from reports or notifications which should not be enumerated as a new case for surveillance
* N/A until more virologic data are available”
If you waded through that CDC ball of fraud, you see how easy it is to work a deception in COVID case-counting and death-number counting.
For example: chills and fever, or cough, are sufficient to label a patient a probable case of “COVID, if he was also in contact with a “risk cohort,” as defined by public health authorities.
This means an elderly person living in a nursing home—the whole home would be a “risk cohort”—who coughs, or who has chills and fever, could be diagnosed, with no test, as a probable case of COVID.
The reason for the hoax is obvious. Medical dictators must squeeze out every possible number they can, by any means, to justify their rampant economic and, thus, human destruction.
The lockdowns and shutdowns have nothing to do with disease.
Also—case numbers sell vaccines, and selling vaccines is the CDC’s main business activity.
From COVID case numbers far lower than claimed By Jon Rappoport