Johns Hopkins Takes Down Article Showing US Deaths in 2020 No Different than Prior Years – It Doesn’t Fit their ‘We’re All Gonna Die’ Narrative
Johns Hopkins University ‘newsletter’ throws work of graduate student under the bus while claiming ‘real’ science from the WHO and CDC is more accurate than the facts.
We reported yesterday how an article in a newsletter published at Johns Hopkins University showed that total deaths in the US have not increased dramatically in 2020 when compared to prior years. This article was taken down. The university could not let it stand:
We were provided more on this unfortunate situation overnight. The university claims the following in regards to taking down the post showing deaths have not increased in 2020 due to the China coronavirus [emphasis ours]:
By YANNI GU |[No doubt Yanni has connections with Mainland China. Just a hunch. We say this in part due to the tight connections between Johns Hopkins and China.]
November 27, 2020 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.[Of course no mention of what ‘dangerous inaccuracies’ have occurred – just that they have.]
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.[The university labels its published work as the spread of misinformation and takes it down.]
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.[Does anyone believe that the decision to take down the article was made ‘independently’? This is transparency?]
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).[Of course the WHO which claimed the mortality rates for the China coronavirus were 3.4% should be trusted! We knew this was a lie in March. Johns Hopkins was silent.]
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.[Johns Hopkins throws the author with an exceptional and courageous paper under the bus. She’s doesn’t have the smarts to do a proper study they claim and therefore should not be trusted like the WHO and CDC.]
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. 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.[Johns Hopkins discounts the results from the study and uses some bizarre chart to support their claims. However, Briand’s report is consistent with the results of studies we published during the summer.]
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.[This point doesn’t address Briand’s claims. The point Briand is making is that many COVID categorized deaths are more properly related to other illnesses. The CDC actually reported that only 6% of all COVID deaths are related to COVID alone. The rest are related to other causes and on average 2-3 other causes. We reported on this previously as well.]
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.[We believe Ms. Briand was behind the most honest and courageous report coming out of Johns Hopkins this year. She supports it with data. Her report is substantiated from prior reports and the CDC itself. But instead of giving the young scholar an award, they throw her under the bus because the narrative is not the picture Johns Hopkins and China want.]
You see, the only measurement we can use to really see the impact of COVID is overall deaths. This is because we really have no faith in what deaths are classified as COVID due to issues with the classification process. So by looking at overall deaths we see that overall deaths are not any higher than prior years. This then indicates that the COVID is not as terrible as China and the US medical profession would like us to think. This is why this report at Johns Hopkins had to be taken down. It has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with the message.