[edit add 9-1-23] Title changed from: "Decrease in death by other causes.....equals the increase in death by COVID-19" to "A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19 - Genevieve Briand" [end edit]
[edit add 12-21-23] changed title back [end edit]
[edit add 2-23-23]
"The current life expectancy for U.S. in 2023 is 79.11 years, a 0.08% increase from 2022.
The life expectancy for U.S. in 2022 was 79.05 years, a 0.08% increase from 2021.
The life expectancy for U.S. in 2021 was 78.99 years, a 0.08% increase from 2020.
The life expectancy for U.S. in 2020 was 78.93 years, a 0.08% increase from 2019."
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life-expectancy [end edit]
[edit add 1-31-22] The article that follows includes data to September 5 of 2020 and shows that the alleged
increase in deaths from COVID-19 was equal to the decrease in deaths from other causes, but that was penned before Big Pharma's grand experiment. Now that 2021 is behind us and we have the year-end all cause mortality numbers in, it isn't hard to see the stunning tragedy that resulted and likely is only beginning to unfold from the dangerous
Big Pharma,
leaky mRNA jab experiment[/url] - particularly in young people - since the group under 25 years of age experienced a doubling in all cause mortality.
All-cause mortality skyrockets in 2021 Data from Europe and the U.S. showMedicare Tracking - 19,400 people under 80 years old died within 14 days of jab [end edit]
________________________________________
The
all cause death rate remained essentially the same for all age groups from week ending 2-1-2020 to 9-5-2020. Only falsely attributing death from other causes such as heart disease, to COVID-19, made it appear otherwise. No surprise there has been
monetary incentive for hospitals to falsely attribute COVID-19 as the cause of death (as admitted to by the CDC):
As you view that chart bear in mind that well over a half a million Americans and millions of people worldwide died horrific and completely unnecessary deaths from COVID-19, because governments and their agencies effectively deprived their citizens of effective early treatment
protocols with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, who as a result were sacrificed on the alter of Big Pharma patent profits.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?board=4.0This is their legacy:
https://c19legacy.com/[edit add 1-13-23] Internet Archive capture as of March 12, 2022:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220312050616/https://c19legacy.com/ [end edit]
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/johns-hopkins-published-then-deleted-study-questioning-us-coronavirus"
Johns Hopkins published then deleted an article questioning the U.S. coronavirus death rate
The university stands by the study but said the article was leading to the spread of 'misinformation'By Sophie Mann
Updated: November 27, 2020 - 5:26pm
Last week, Johns Hopkins University published a now-deleted article explaining a study examining the effects of the novel coronavirus on United States death totals using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Genevieve Briand, the assistant program director of the Applied Economics master's degree program at Johns Hopkins, determined, in the study, that there have been 1.7 million deaths in the U.S. between March 2020 and September 2020, 12% (or roughly 200,000) of which have been coronavirus-related.
Briand posits that the only way to understand the significance of the U.S. coronavirus death rate is by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.
According to Briand, who compared the total deaths per age category from both before and after the onset of the global pandemic, the death rate of older people stayed the same before and after coronavirus.
"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," wrote Briand.
She also noted that between 50,000 and 70,000 deaths are seen both before and after the emergence of the virus, meaning that, according to her analysis, coronavirus has had no effect on the percentage of total deaths of older people, nor has it increased the total number of deaths in the category.
These results contradict the way most people see the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which disproportionately affects the elderly population.
Briand believes, after reviewing the numbers, that coronavirus deaths are being over-exaggerated. After seeing that in 2020, coronavirus-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart disease -- the leading cause of death in the U.S. for many years prior -- Briand began to suspect that the coronavirus death toll figure may be misleading.
Briand found that "the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19," according to the original JHU newsletter."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," said Briand.
"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," she continued.
PDF Article
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iO0K75EZAF8dkNDkDmM3L4zNNY0X-Xw5/viewSeveral days after removing the article, Johns Hopkins University tweeted that the article,
"A closer look at U.S. deaths to COVID-19," was deleted because "the article was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic."
"We regret that this article may have contributed to the spread of misinformation about COVID-19," tweeted the institution.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19
____________________________________
"The Censorship of Genevieve Briand"
Ethan Yang
– December 1, 2020
On November 13, 2020, Johns Hopkins University Advanced Academic Programs posted a YouTube lecture conducted by Dr. Genevieve Briand, JHU’s MS in Applied Economics Assistant Program Director. The talk was titled Covid-19 Deaths: A Look at US Data and a full summary produced by AIER can be found here.
The general idea of the lecture was that Covid-19 deaths as reported by the CDC may be misleading due to a number of accounting aberrations in the data. One of the most notable discrepancies Briand points out is the reclassification of death by other diseases, such as heart disease, as Covid-19 deaths simply because at the time of death the individuals also had Covid. She also makes claims suggesting that overall deaths in 2020 have not substantially increased from past years. Although I am sympathetic to the research, this article should not be construed to be an explicit endorsement of the findings."
This of course is a ridiculous explanation and highly inappropriate and drew much-needed criticism in the comment section."
Much more:
https://www.aier.org/article/the-censorship-of-dr-briand/The censorship of the article, based on how it was being used, follows.
https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19"
A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19By YANNI GU | November 27, 2020
Johns Hopkins
Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.
[admin: So they removed the study because they didn't like the way it was being used.
I would suggest, in other words, because it didn't support the fear porn narrative and upcoming Big Pharma's vaxx-or-die profit drive, by depriving patients of $20 early home treatment protocols. Which in hindsight seems a bit more of a vaxx-and-die profit drive.]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).
[admin note: Briand herself indicated the same. So why did they censor it?]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.
[Admin: nor does it take into account how many deaths there would have been, if everyone had been treated early with near 100% effective generic drug/nutraceutical protocols, which theoretically would have made all COVID deaths a statistical zero.] 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.
[Admin note: This has always been the case and is why flu has been dubbed "The old man's friend". Flu is seen as closing the book on a person's life, that has been suffering and died from other chronic health conditions. If a person with chronic heart disease is admitted to the hospital and their heart fails, and dies with the flu, should that be considered a flu death? Then why a COVID death? Was it because hospitals had financial incentive for labeling patients as having COVID?
And her study doesn't even take into account the subject of unreliable and fraudulent PCR testing and whether they really had COVID-19, testing cycle thresholds of 35+ were used.
WHO - high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=646.0]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."
While claiming that a few of Briand's
statements were incorrect the correction suggested as Briand did herself, "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)."
Briand bio:
https://brownstone.org/author/genevieve/So was censoring the article the right thing to do, or would have allowing it to undergo public scrutiny, while allowing Briand to defend her work in an open forum, been the more honest and intelligent thing to do?
After they censored her study the number of views soared.
Briand did a followup study:
"New Study Highlights Alleged Accounting Error Regarding Covid Deaths"
"However, a new study (link removed or site crashed but now available at Archive.org) published by Dr. Genevieve Briand at Johns Hopkins University notes some critical accounting errors done at the national level. The study – which is still being vetted – simply examines the raw data that should have been questioned months ago. The overall conclusion is that Covid-19, at least according to collected data, is not the killer disease that it is currently hyped up to be. AIER is not endorsing the study as is without further study, but we are interested in the argument being examined and discussed."
https://www.aier.org/article/new-study-highlights-serious-accounting-error-regarding-covid-deaths/Here's a recently graduated student on the subject of this censorship:
https://www.aier.org/article/the-censorship-of-dr-briand/[end edit]
