- Death Rate or Case Fatality Rate (CFR): Authentic or Inflated?
- Table 1: Total Number of New Daily Cases, Survivors and Deaths, Updated May 2, 2020
- Figure 1: Total Number of Cases, Survivors and Deaths, Updated May 2, 2020
- Table 2: Growth Rate of Total Cases, Updated May 2, 2020
- Figure 2: Growth Rate of Total Cases, Updated May 2, 2020
- Table 3: Trends in Case Fatality Rate (CFR), Updated May 2, 2020
- Figure 3: Trends in Case Fatality Rates or Death Rates
- Science: Our Liberator or Our Nightmare?
There is a complex and convoluted relationship between death rate or case fatality rate (CFR), science, lockdown, fear, the “new normal”, vaccines, social control, and the human immune system.
It is one of the key tasks of this website to unveil the relationship of all these topics. I will be writing a number of articles to clarify the systemic connections between these aspects of the world crisis.
A very specific narrative is being woven around these topics by the powers that be. If we do NOT present an evidence-based alternative narrative or framing of the COVID-19 challenge, we will become hapless victims in a world where our real humanity will have no future.
In the process, my articles will also clarify the importance of the articles and documents that this website has chosen to highlight.
Make no mistake about it. A very specific narrative is being woven around these topics by the powers that be. If we do NOT present an evidence-based alternative narrative or framing of the COVID-19 challenge, we will become hapless victims in a world where our real humanity will have no future.
Citizens around the world should be vigilant regarding the kind of messages that the World Health Organization (WHO), their associated medical doctors and scientists, political leaders, and media are broadcasting. Then we will get a glimpse as to what kind of future the top leaders of the world are preparing for humanity through COVID-19, if we remain ignorant, passive and do not unfold our full human potential.
Let us begin with studying the supposed death rates from COVID-19.
Death Rate or Case Fatality Rate (CFR): Authentic or Inflated?
We all know the narrative regarding COVID-19. There is no need to get into the details except to give a general picture.
First some unknown disease emerged out of Wuhan, China, a city of over 10 million people. It spread rapidly. Soon there were lots of infected cases, and soon the numbers of deaths also followed.
The disease spread to other countries which worriedly looked at the number of infected cases. A few weeks later, Italy overtook China and became the epicenter of infections and deaths. Then after a few weeks, it was the turn of the USA to become the center of the pandemic with deaths that looked appalling.
The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a pandemic. And country after country started locking down with the WHO criticizing those countries that were not locking down.
This was the general situation when, alarmed, I personally did my own research, 16 hours a day, searching and reading dozens of articles on a daily basis. On the basis of this research, I decided to take action.
I wrote an Open Letter to the President of the Philippines and backed up my key points there with scientific evidence. The Briefing Paper connected with the Open Letter contains the evidence. I then posted these documents in this website. I personally identified key people who could reach the President to ensure that he obtained a copy of the Open Letter and the Briefing Paper.
In both documents, using the Philippine experience, I highlighted the reality that, in spite of the increasing cumulative total number of cases, both the growth rate and the death rate for COVID-19 in the Philippines were definitely going down. I supported this conclusion on the basis of facts collected by the government’s Department of Health (DOH) and other statistical collecting bodies, both national and global.
Here are Tables 1, 2, and 3, and Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Briefing Paper updated until 02 May 2020 [to download files, go to download section at the bottom of this post].
Table 1: Total Number of New Daily Cases, Survivors and Deaths, Updated May 2, 2020
Figure 1: Total Number of Cases, Survivors and Deaths, Updated May 2, 2020
Table 2: Growth Rate of Total Cases, Updated May 2, 2020
Figure 2: Growth Rate of Total Cases, Updated May 2, 2020
Table 3: Trends in Case Fatality Rate (CFR), Updated May 2, 2020
Figure 3: Trends in Case Fatality Rates or Death Rates
The counter-intuitive conclusion that I had reached was that COVID-19 was not a deadly as once believed. Therefore the President should not be continuing his lockdown policies for the nation. On the other hand, the Philippines had over 57, 000 deaths due to pneumonia annually. Yet the government was not locking down the nation. (See Briefing Paper, Table 4.)
Shortly after I published the Open Letter and the Briefing Paper, articles reporting on scientific studies started coming in, confirming the decline of the growth rate of infections and death rate for COVID-19 [See Antibody Testing Shows Coronavirus Infected A Lot More People Than Previously Thought and COVID-19 Growth Rates Declining Worldwide].
Evidence also poured in to question the high levels of CFR worldwide. The numerator (death reports) were inaccurate and the denominator (number of infections) were much more extensive than believed. Reducing the numerator and increasing the denominator would decrease the CFR value. (See Briefing Paper.)
Many of these global scientific studies, like the Briefing Paper, were showing that countries were not distinguishing deaths FROM COVID-19 versus deaths WITH COVID-19. Most of the deaths were from the latter, people who already had one, two, or three kinds of serious illnesses. These diseases made them “immunocompromised” (weakened immune system) and made them easy prey to COVID-19. In Italy, more than 99% of the deaths were WITH COVID-19, coming from immunocompromised patients.
There is also increasing evidence, from doctors in emergency rooms, that their higher authorities, including the CDC, were instructing them to report non-COVID-19 deaths as COVID-19 deaths.1 The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is the US institution that has become famous with continuous presence in world TV of Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Trump’s COVID-19 adviser who heads the infectious disease section of the CDC.
Furthermore, actual field tests were showing that, at least in a county in California, there were some 50-85 times more infections than recorded. This increased the figure of the denominator and plunged the figure of CFR dramatically. Instead of the CFR at around 6%+ globally, the CFR was closer to the 0.1% CFR of ordinary flu.
Los Angeles County did a similar test with similar results, boosting further the notion that the infections were widespread and most infected cases were asymptomatic (not symptoms of the disease).2
Science: Our Liberator or Our Nightmare?
The above clearly illustrates the key role that science plays in policy matters. Scientific findings, for better or for worse, can impact the lives of billions around the planet.
This brings us to the story of Dr. Neil Ferguson, a scientist from the Imperial College of London. A lot of newspaper articles and other scientists refer to his work. His is a story of the sad consequences when an inaccurate science becomes the mainstay not only of the United Kingdom but also the WHO and many countries in the world.
Ferguson is known for his mathematical models that became the basis for lockdowns and “flattening the curve” in the UK. His models are strongly endorsed by the WHO and scientists from other countries.3
Dr. Paul Goldschmidt, Emeritus Virologist from the Ministry of Health of France, describes the situation as follows:
“And thanks to a WHO recommendation, this [Ferguson] model was used as a basis for all political government decisions, without discussing it or testing the equations. I have looked into this from the start and saw that something was wrong. I didn’t find it conclusive.”
…what kind of science is to be believed: one that adjusts to reality or one that arrogantly forces reality to fit into its narrow, incomplete or mistaken models of reality?
Initially, Ferguson predicted 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million deaths in the US. Yet, when he succeeded convincing Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the UK, to go for lockdown instead of collective immunity, he downsized the 500,000 deaths to 20,000 deaths the following day.
Dr. Goldschmidt continues his observation on this incident:
“The day before yesterday evening, Mr. Ferguson said that the projection they calculated should be massively reduced in terms of the number of deaths (…) What does that mean?
That, for example, he predicted 2,200,000 deaths for the United States and 500,000 for the United Kingdom with his model – which is now being used by the whole world without ever having questioned it – if no measures were taken to flatten the curve and everything that goes with it, take hold.”
Dr. Knut Wittkowski, the 20-year head of the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University, New York, makes a similar and more precise observation.
“You know Neil Ferguson has changed his estimate of the number of dead in England from 500,000 to 20,000 or less, and he says that that is because of social distancing. Now, we also know that the way in which social distancing was implemented in England was not very severe, or extreme, or efficient, so this was after one day of lockdown, he announced that in fact, it would be 20,000 or less. Is there any possibility that that number would have changed that way because of the social distancing?”4
These exaggerated figures encouraged Dr. Vernon Coleman to write his voice of dissent. Dr. Coleman is a living legend in the scientific, medical and health circles at the UK.
“And at the end of it, whenever that finally comes, Boris, our brave leader, and Ferguson, the mathematical modeler whose disputed work led to the death of six million animals during the foot and mouth `crisis’, will stand side by side and announce, with surprising humility, that they saved us all.”5
Here is a more precise description of the exaggerated tendencies of Ferguson’s mathematical models. It comes from Michael Thrusfield, a professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University,
He told the Business Insider paper that “he had ‘déjà vu’ after reading the Imperial paper, saying Ferguson was responsible for excessive animal culling during the 2001 Foot and Mouth outbreak. …. Ferguson warned the government that 150,000 people could die. Six million animals were slaughtered as a precaution, costing the country billions in farming revenue. In the end, 200 people died.”6
Apparently, Ferguson has a record of failed exaggerated claims.
In 2009, there was the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK. Ferguson was at work again with his models. His model “predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu outbreak in the UK — the final figure was below 500.”7
Ferguson also created panic by exaggerating the potential deaths from the 2005 Bird Flu outbreak. “Ferguson estimated 200 million could die. The real number was in the low hundreds.”8
But Ferguson is unrepentant. He is sticking his ground. “‘I much prefer to be accused of overreacting than under-reacting,’ Ferguson said in February. On April 16, he told an IMF meeting, ‘We don’t have a crystal ball.’9
So what is the lesson for the world?
Understandably the vast majority of the world believes in science. It ought to. Science is currently the world’s most important source of reliable knowledge. The technologies that come from science span and shape the societal structure of the world.
Will we abdicate our critical reasoning powers and start treating scientists as the new high priests of a religious version of science?
But what kind of science is to be believed: one that adjusts to reality or one that arrogantly forces reality to fit into its narrow, incomplete or mistaken models of reality?
More important than science itself is critical thinking about science. Once scientist write their results in the universal language that intelligent lay persons can understand, what they have discovered can be scrutinized by thinking humans the world over.
Will we abdicate our critical reasoning powers and start treating scientists as the new high priests of a religious version of science? Real science rises and falls on facts and critically digested facts.
If science is just a way to preserve the interest of the few, and a way to mystify the masses, the consequences can be horrifying. We see this clearly in humanity’s response to COVID-19. Billions of people around the planet are now suffering lockdown issues: collapsing economies, millions unemployed, hysteria, panic, starvation, social conflict, and more. Why? Leaders chose to believe one scientist who dazzled them with mathematical equations and scared them all to order a lockdown.
We will continue this path of critical and constructive thinking about science in the months to come. You will start hearing the voices of other scientists and doctors who are questioning the new religion of lockdowns and the “new normal” based on faulty science. Here is a sample of some of them.10 We will share more in the future.
Science governs our perception of reality. And our perception governs our behavior and the behavior of our societies. We have to ensure that our scientific belief system is in solid ground and not based on an incomplete reality.
Subscribe to the newsletter!
- This is how COVID-19 death rates in the US are manipulated
- USC-LA County antibody suggests true COVID-19 infections higher than official count
- Dr. Knut Wittkowski: A second wave of coronavirus infections will come as a direct result of social distancing and self isolation
- Is there a coronavirus conspiracy?
- Professor lockdown: The good and the bad
- These experts are criticizing the coronavirus panic