Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Coronavirus Con Job: An Exposé of the Exaggerated Death Narrative

Written by:

Published on: April 15, 2020

“It is a fact that facts are stubborn things, while statistics are generally more pliable … figures don’t lie, but liars figure. You can torture numbers and they will confess to anything. And statistics mean never having to say you are sorry.”

Rick Kirschner, Insider’s Guide to the Art of Persuasion: Use your Influence to Change Your World (Ashland, OR: Rick Kirschner, 2007), 134.

There is no doubt that people are suffering and dying from what we are told is the Coronavirus. They should be met with support and compassion. However, to what extent is this really happening?

What is perplexing about the large number of fatalities we are told are caused by the Coronavirus is that people do not think twice about whether the data is manipulated. This is all besides the fact that many don’t normally trust the media and government; that human nature is fallen; that data has been manipulated throughout history; and our government is run by God-hating secularists who want total control over our lives.

The history of vaccination is a history of data manipulation. And those sounding the alarm about the Coronavirus are the same people perpetuating myths about vaccination; and are in fact building up to have everyone mass vaccinated. If we are concerned about deadly pandemics, we should be especially concerned about vaccination. (See testimonies of countless vaccine deaths and injuries here.)

Here we analyze Coronavirus deaths, and show that the data is indeed obviously and deliberately manipulated (they are even open about it). The high death rates we are assured are occurring are producing fear-based panic where people are begging to have their liberties taken away from them.

In short, this article calls the government-run media narrative into question — and demonstrates an open intent by the government to deceive the public. It also covers other factors that might be artificially increasing COVID-19 death rates. Finally, some historical factors are discussed that shed more light on the government’s practices of deception and manipulation.

Topics in this article include:

  • The CDC openly requires arbitrary data on Coronavirus deaths
  • White House and Fauci essentially admit to skewing data
  • Dr. Scott Jensen on the nonsensical CDC guidelines
  • Most diagnosed with Coronavirus already have medical problems
  • Coronavirus fatalities in Italy: vast majority had other conditions
  • Dissenting experts weigh in
  • Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel: “more critical analyses of” deaths must be taken
  • Peter Hitchens: dying with Coronavirus is not necessarily dying from it
  • Coronavirus PCR testing is unreliable
  • Financial incentives: bribed for diagnoses?
  • Fatal cure? A large number could actually dying from ventilators instead of the Coronvirus
  • A deceptive pattern: arbitrary flu data and manipulation
  • The Coronavirus manipulation strategy eerily and openly promoted in 2004

We are in an information war. I hope this info will be widely shared to help as many as possible wake up and oppose the tyranny we are facing. Your liberty, and maybe even you life, is at stake.

The CDC openly requires arbitrary data on Coronavirus deaths

That the alleged death rates for the Coronavirus are deliberately skewed is spelled out in black and white by the CDC itself. Let’s analyze a recent CDC memo. On March 24, the CDC published “New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths.” It states:

This email is to alert you that a newly-introduced ICD code has been implemented to accurately capture mortality data for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on death certificates., New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths, “National Vital Statistics System” (COVID-19 Alert No. 2, March 24, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

While the pretense is to “accurately capture mortality data,” the same piece says this:

COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.


Incredible – “accurately” capturing mortality data entails, first, a subjective assumption (“assumed to have caused”).

Second, the Coronavirus is considered to be the underlying cause of death even though it is only suspected to have “contributed to death.” A contribution is not necessarily the main, underlying cause. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and, when other possible contributions to death are automatically ruled out, it is also logically inconsistent.

And so according to the CDC memo, if the Coronavirus is assumed to have contributed to death (no matter how insignificantly), any other conditions that the patient had (no matter how deadly) must be considered secondary or irrelevant. They are to be reported in Part II of the death certificate form, reserved for “significant conditions contributing to death,” but not “resulting in the underlying cause.” (See sample death certificate below.)

Apparently, the standard for determining an underlying cause of death has been changed to accommodate the Coronavirus. Previously, prior conditions were not to be dismissed out of hand as underlying causes, even when people had them years before dying. As the Journal of Family Practice states:

Underlying cause of death: A disease or condition present before, and leading to, the intermediate or immediate cause of death. It can be present for years before the death.

Doug Campos-Outcalt, “Cause-of-death certification:
Not as easy as it seems,” The Journal of Family Practice, February 2005, VOL 54, No. 2, 135. Retrieved April 12, 2020, from

On the CDC’s instructions for coding COVID-19 deaths, Shawn Siegel comments,

Fascinating. This is from an update to instructions that were originally published a month ago by the CDC. As an ostensible means of “accurately [capturing] mortality data” for COVID-19, they nevertheless carefully point out that testing isn’t necessary; that “an assumption that the illness either caused or contributed to the death” (emphasis theirs) is sufficient.

It goes on to say that existing chronic conditions, which could have been a significant factor in or actual cause of the death, should be listed on another part of the COD form. COVID-19 is still listed as the underlying cause, and the death is counted, listed and reported to the public as another coronavirus casualty.

The only question remaining is what percentage of the growing number of reported COVID-19 deaths had little or nothing to do with coronavirus.

Shawn Siegel, Facebook, April 1, 2020

Below is a sample death certificate from the CDC. The immediate cause of death is acute respiratory acidosis. Note how COVID-19 is considered the underlying cause of death, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is not (it’s relegated to Part II, less significant causes) — even though the latter can lead to acute respiratory acidosisThis is harmonious with the CDC’s instructions to automatically make the Coronavirus the underlying cause of death, even if something else may have been the main or sole cause.

From Vital Statistics Reporting Guidance, “Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19): Appendix. Scenarios and Example
Certifications for Deaths Due to COVID–19,” Report No. 3, April 2020 (CDC), 4. Retrieved April 11, 2020, from

But, it keeps getting better. Another part of the CDC memo we were discussing reads:

What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?

If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code [indicating COVID-19, ed.]. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases., New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths

What an amazing statement!: “It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases.” In other words, the National Center for Health Statistics — “the nation’s principal health statistics agency,” that compiles “statistical information to guide actions and policies to improve the health of the population” (source) — probably won’t bother determining the legitimacy of the cause of the reported deaths.

Or, as Del Bigtree comments,


It’s almost like they’re saying, “You know, go ahead and call it COVID-19, we’re trying to bump these numbers up a little bit, and don’t worry, it is coming from us. Obviously we can’t say that, but what we are saying to you is, even if you think it’s likely, even if you don’t have the background, you don’t have a test to prove it, and there’s uncertainty, just put the code in there, and don’t worry about it, okay? Don’t worry about it, we’ll take it from there, and you will never get called out on this.”

The HighWire with Del Bigtree, COVID Death Toll in Question? (YouTube, April 6, 2020). Retrieved April 8, 2020, from

But, what can we expect when the CDC has a desired outcome. As the CDC memo also states,

the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID19 being the underlying cause more often than not., New ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths,

Not sure, if the medical practitioners are being objective, why this is expected to be the case — unless of course the CDC wants it so.

White House and Fauci essentially admit to skewed data

In a press briefing on April 7, Dr. Deborah Birx, the White House’s COVID-19 task force response coordinator, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the chief figurehead in the Coronavirus hysteria, essentially admit that the COVID-19 mortality data is skewed.

DR. BIRX: So, I think, in this country, we’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality, and I think the reporting here has been pretty straightforward over the last five to six weeks. Prior to that, when there wasn’t testing in January and February, that’s a very different situation and unknown.

There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let’s say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem — some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death.

Right now, we’re still recording it, and we’ll — I mean, the great thing about having forms that come in and a form that has the ability to mark it as COVID-19 infection — the intent is, right now, that those — if someone dies with COVID-19, we are counting that as a COVID-19 death., Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing (April 7, 2020). Retrieved April 9, 2020, from

In short, America’s “liberal approach to mortality” means that if you die with COVID-19 – regardless of other conditions, such as heart or kidney problems – then COVID-19 is considered the cause of death, and any other underlying conditions are minimized or discounted. Dying with COVID-19 is equivalent from dying from it.

Dr. Fauci backed up Birx’s statements:

DR. FAUCI: No. I — I think there’s so much focus now on coronavirus that — particularly if you take New York, which we all know is — is having a disproportionately higher proportion of the burden of the entire country is right now in New York.

No, I can’t imagine if someone comes in with coronavirus, goes to an ICU, and they have an underlying heart condition and they die — they’re going to say, “Cause of death: heart attack.” I — I cannot see that — that happening. So I don’t think it’s going to be a problem.


One must clearly see the dishonest approach to reporting COVID-19 deaths here: even if, as Fauci mentions, one with an underlying heart condition dies of a heart attack, that person is nevertheless counted as a COVID-19 death – no questions asked.

Dr. Scott Jensen on the nonsensical CDC guidelines

Dr. Scott Jensen, family physician and Republican state senator, finds the CDC guidelines that arbitrarily increase the official COVID-19 death rates to be nonsensical. He said this in a recent interview on Fox News:

Jensen gave a hypothetical example of a patient who died while suffering from influenza. If the patient was elderly and had symptoms like fever and cough a few days before passing away, the doctor explained, he would have listed “respiratory arrest” as the primary cause of death.

“I’ve never been encouraged to [notate ‘influenza’],” he said. “I would probably write ‘respiratory arrest’ to be the top line, and the underlying cause of this disease would be pneumonia … I might well put emphysema or congestive heart failure, but I would never put influenza down as the underlying cause of death and yet that’s what we are being asked to do here.”

Charles Creitz, Minnesota doctor blasts ‘ridiculous’ CDC coronavirus death count guidelines, Fox News (April 9, 2020). Retrieved April 12, 2020, at

He added,

Let’s just take someone getting hit by a bus. They collapse a lung and they go into a emergency room … bloodwork comes back, COVID test comes back positive, and they die 20 minutes later because of their collapsed lung. We’re going to put that down as COVID-19? That doesn’t make any sense.

Most diagnosed with Coronavirus already have medical problems

We must be careful to make fine distinctions between dying with the Coronavirus and dying from the Coronavirus – something that the official death statistics don’t do. Thus, they are unreliable — at least to the extent that they disregard the possibility of other underlying conditions being the cause of death, or assume COVID-19 to be the cause of death without sufficient evidence.

And so, now that we’ve established that data is deliberately skewed to automatically discount other known conditions as causes of death, how prevalent is this reporting flaw? It is actually the majority of the time. Most who are said to have the Coronavirus already have medical problems — even serious ones.

According to Reuters:

March 31 (Reuters) – Diabetes, heart disease and long-term lung problems are the most common underlying conditions among Americans hospitalized with the illness caused by the new coronavirus, but more than one in five people requiring intensive care had no such health issues, according to a report issued on Tuesday.

The findings show that higher percentages of COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions were being admitted to hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. That echoes patterns seen in other countries hit hard by the pandemic.

Gene Emery, “Diabetes, lung and heart disease common in U.S. coronavirus patients -CDC,” Reuters (March 31, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

Regarding those diagnosed with COVID-19, the piece mentions that, according to researchers, “at least one underlying health problem” was found in 78% of ICU patients; 32% with diabetes, 29% with cardiovascular disease; 21% with chronic lung disease; 12% with long-term kidney disease; and 9% with a weakened immune system. (Ibid.)

And also the BMJ reports:

[T]he China Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s report of 44 000 people with laboratory confirmed covid-19. Older age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, hypertension, and cancer were all associated with an increased risk of death. A meta-analysis of eight studies including 46 248 patients with laboratory confirmed covid-19 indicated that those with the most severe disease were more likely to have hypertension (odds ratio 2.36 (95% confidence interval 1.46 to 3.83)), respiratory disease (2.46 (1.76 to 3.44)), and cardiovascular disease (3.42 (1.88 to 6.22)).

Rachel E. Jordan, Peymane Adab, and K.K. Cheng, Covid-19: risk factors for severe disease and death,” BMJ (March 26, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

Coronavirus fatalities in Italy: vast majority had other conditions

Considering what we have said thus far, the following should not be surprising about the Coronavirus fatalities in Italy:

The Rome-based institute has examined medical records of about 18% of the country’s coronavirus fatalities, finding that just three victims, or 0.8% of the total, had no previous pathology. Almost half of the victims suffered from at least three prior illnesses and about a fourth had either one or two previous conditions.

More than 75% had high blood pressure, about 35% had diabetes and a third suffered from heart disease. …

The average age of those who’ve died from the virus in Italy is 79.5. As of March 17, 17 people under 50 had died from the disease. All of Italy’s victims under 40 have been males with serious existing medical conditions.

Tommaso Ebhardt, Chiara Remondini, and Marco Bertacche, “99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says,” Bloomberg (March 18, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

Let’s try, then, to be more nuanced than the government and press in our consideration of why people die with the Coronavirus. Considering they are mostly older people and those with underlying conditions, could weakened immune systems be the greatest factor (whether or not the Coronavirus played a role in their deaths)? Could many of the deaths be due to the respiratory diseases, or perhaps some other conditions, that many have? Does the Coronavirus mainly just hasten the deaths of those who may be already close to death?

Dissenting experts weigh in

The following thoughts from the piece “TWENTY-TWO Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic [VIDEOS & Scientific Common Sense]” explore the distinction between dying from the Coronavirus and dying with it:

… An overestimation of the CFR [case fatality rate] also occurs when a deceased person is found to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, but this was not the cause of death.

– German Network for Evidence-Based Medicine is an association of German scientists, researchers and medical professionals.

Pam Barker, TWENTY-TWO Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic [VIDEOS & Scientific Common Sense],” Europe Reloaded (April 1, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from


… You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

— Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist


Also consider the following from the same article, and how respiratory problems could be misdiagnosed as COVID-19:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

— Dr Yoram Lass, an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry



The ill-founded opinions expressed by international experts, replicated by the media and social networks repeat the unnecessary panic that we have previously experienced. The coronavirus identified in China in 2019 caused nothing less than a strong cold or flu, with no difference so far with cold or flu as we know,”


Respiratory viral conditions are numerous and are caused by several viral families and species, among which the respiratory syncytial virus (especially in infants), influenza (influenza), human meta-pneumoviruses, adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, and various coronaviruses, already described years ago. It is striking that earlier this year, global health alerts have been triggered as a result of infections by a coronavirus detected in China, COVID-19, knowing that each year there are 3 million newborns who die in the world of pneumonia, and 50,000 adults in the United States for the same cause, without alarms being issued.

– Dr. Pablo Goldschmidt, an Argentine-French virologist specializing in tropical diseases, and Professor of Molecular Pharmacology at the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel: “more critical analyses of” deaths must be taken

This is from a translation of an open letter to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel from Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz:

[T]he mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as it is established that the virus was present at the time of death – regardless of other factors. This violates aPrinciples of only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made. The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines: “In addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated, with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate. Occasionally, four-linked causal chains must also be stated.”

At present there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus.

My question: Has Germany simply followed this trend of a COVID-19 general suspicion? And: is it intended to continue this categorisation uncritically as in other countries? How, then, is a distinction to be made between genuine corona-related deaths and accidental virus presence at the time of death?

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi “COVID-19, Urgent Reassessment, Diagnosis and Basic Principles of Infectiology: Open Letter from Professor Sucharit Bhakdi to German Chancellor Dr. Angela Merkel (Global Research, March 30, 2020; Swiss Propaganda Research, March 26, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

Quote from Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany: S1-Leitlinie 054-001, Regeln zur Durchführung der ärztlichen Leichenschau. AWMF Online (abgerufen am 26.3.2020)

Peter Hitchens: dying with Coronavirus is not necessariy dying from it

On the UK side of things, commentator Peter Hitchens captures the essence of the flawed reporting system:

Many people will die with coronavirus. But this does not mean that they died of it.

This is already a major problem in judging death totals from such countries as Italy. Yet new rules in the UK mean deaths which may well be mainly from other causes are recorded as corona deaths.

John Lee, a recently retired professor of pathology and a former NHS consultant pathologist, writes in The Spectator this weekend that by making Covid-19 a notifiable disease, the authorities may have distorted the figures.

‘In the current climate, anyone with a positive test for Covid-19 will certainly be known to clinical staff looking after them: if any of these patients dies, staff will have to record the Covid-19 designation on the death certificate – contrary to usual practice for most infections of this kind.

‘There is a big difference between Covid-19 causing death, and Covid-19 being found in someone who died of other causes. Making Covid-19 notifiable might give the appearance of it causing increasing numbers of deaths, whether this is true or not. It might appear far more of a killer than flu, simply because of the way deaths are recorded.’

This, of course, explains why such an overwhelming number of Covid deaths, here and abroad, involve so-called ‘underlying conditions’, in fact serious, often fatal, diseases.

Peter Hitchens, “There’s powerful evidence this Great Panic is foolish, yet our freedom is still broken and our economy crippled,” Daily (March 28, 2020; updated March 29, 2020). Retrieved April 4, 2020, from

Coronavirus PCR testing is unreliable

We must further ask: of the reported deaths due to the Coronavirus (a large number of which are questionable as to the cause, given the other health problems of the deceased), how reliable was the diagnosis?

First, how many are arbitrarily assumed to be the Coronavirus, without testing?

Second, PCR testing — one of the most common ways to test for the Coronavirus — itself has serious flaws. We hear a lot about Coronavirus tests producing false negatives, but there is documented evidence that they can produce false positives.

Now, I do not know what percentage of those who are said to have died from the Coronavirus have been tested, let alone using the particular PCR test. (USA Today said April 2 that 100,000 people are being tested a day.)

Whatever the case, investigative reporter Jon Rappaport exposes serious flaws in the PCR tests in his piece “Creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests.” He writes:

The widespread test for the COVID-19 virus is called the PCR. I have written much about it in past articles.

Now let’s go to published official literature, and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

Jon Rappoport, Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests, (April 8, 2020). Retrieved April 10, 2020, from

Here we will include his commentary on statements about the PCR testing kits.

From the CDC:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

CDC, CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel (Atlanta, GA: March 30, 2020), 36. Retrieved April 10, 2020, from

Rappaport writes:

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

Rappaport, Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests.

From the World Health Organization (WHO)

Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.

Cited in Rappaport, Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests.The actual page that Rappaport links to appears to have modified the language. Rappaport’s quote appears legit, as it is also quoted here, so it appears the WHO recently modified the language. Here is the page that Rapport links to:
World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans. Accessible at

Rappaport writes:

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

Rappaport, Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests.

From the FDA

The SARS-CoV-2 RNA is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.


Rappaport writes:

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

Rappaport, Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests.

Read more of Rappaport’s expose here.

And so as we can see, not only do we have serious problems in determining whether the Coronavirus is a cause of death, but whether one has the Coronavirus to be begin with.

Financial incentives: bribed for diagnoses?

There are also financial incentives to further boost the death rates. Whether the idea is implicit bribery or not, I do not know. But the incentives can easily inflate the number of official deaths.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act became law on March 27, 2020. As reported by the California Hospital Association:

The CARES Act includes a number of provisions that will increase payments for hospitals caring for Medicare patients, including the elimination of the 2% sequestration cut from May 1 to December 31, 2020, a 20% add-on payment to the DRG rate for patients with COVID-19 at rural and urban IPPS hospitals, and expanded options for the Medicare accelerated payment program for children’s hospitals, cancer hospitals, and critical access hospitals. (4/10)

California Hospital Association, Coronavirus Response: FAQs: Federal Funding (April 10, 2020). Retrieved April 11, 2020, from

So, at least when it comes to Medicare patients, hospitals get 20% more reimbursement for diagnosing someone with the Coronavirus than with another condition with similar symptoms.

According to Dr. Scott Jensen, family physician and Republican state senator,

Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you’ll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000; three times as much. Nobody can tell me, after 35 years in the world of medicine, that sometimes those kinds of things [have] impact on what we do.

Charles Creitz, Minnesota doctor blasts ‘ridiculous’ CDC coronavirus death count guidelines, Fox News (April 9, 2020). Retrieved April 12, 2020, at

On this investigative reporter Jon Rappaport writes:

I reached out to Senator Jensen, and obtained clarification. Jensen told me his remark pertained to patients with Medicare coverage. And the 2 payouts he mentioned are standard insurance payments from Medicare which would go to the hospital.

Of course, he explained, some hospitals have a pay-share plan with their staff doctors. Therefore, a windfall for the hospital is passed along to those doctors.

Jensen told me: Take a Medicare patient who is diagnosed with simple non-COVID pneumonia. The hospital would receive a one-time Medicare lump-sum payout of $4600.

However, if that Medicare patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia, the Medicare coverage is a one-time $13,000 payment. And if the hospital puts that COVID-19 pneumonia patient on a ventilator, the one-time payment is $39,000. NOTE: It doesn’t matter how long these patients stay in hospital—there is only going to be one lump-sum insurance payment.

Jon Rappoport, My conversation with State Senator and doctor who exposes Medicare payouts for COVID-19 patients, (April 12, 2020). Retrieved April 13, 2020, from

Rapport adds:

So, I infer, there are several types of financial incentives for hospitals—

ONE: Diagnose as many people as possible with COVID-19.

TWO: Diagnose as many people as possible with COVID-19 who have light symptoms—making it easy to move them out of the hospital quickly.

THREE: Put as many COVID patients as possible on ventilators for as short a time as possible.

Perhaps another possible financial incentive to label people as having the Coronavirus is fear of lawsuits: since everyone — lawmakers, citizens, etc. — is infected by Coronavirus hysteria, could many doctors be hastily diagnosing patients as having the Coronavirus to protect themselves from lawsuits if a patient is later diagnosed with it and dies? Speculation, but seems plausible.

Fatal cure? A large number could actually dying from ventilators instead of the Coronavirus

It’s possible that the death rate of those diagnosed with the Coronavirus is greatly inflated by ventilators. As the Associated Press reports:

As health officials around the world push to get more ventilators to treat coronavirus patients, some doctors are moving away from using the breathing machines when they can.

The reason: Some hospitals have reported unusually high death rates for coronavirus patients on ventilators, and some doctors worry that the machines could be harming certain patients. …

[E]xperts do say ventilators can be damaging to a patient over time, as high-pressure oxygen is forced into the tiny air sacs in a patient’s lungs.

“We know that mechanical ventilation is not benign,” said Dr. Eddy Fan, an expert on respiratory treatment at Toronto General Hospital. “One of the most important findings in the last few decades is that medical ventilation can worsen lung injury — so we have to be careful how we use it.”

Mike Stobbe, Some doctors are moving away from ventilators to treat coronavirus patients. The reason: Unusually high death rates, Associated Press (Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2020). Retrieved April 11, 2020, from

Daily reports:

Figures show two-thirds of COVID-19 sufferers who are hooked up to the potentially life-saving machines in the UK do not survive.

Reports in China, Italy and the US have found that less than half of patients who are intubated recover. Experts are unsure why the death rates are so high.

In New York City, at least 80 per cent of coronavirus patients in New York City who have been put on a ventilator have died.

Connor Boyd, Are doctors HARMING coronavirus patients by putting them on ventilators too early? Doctors warn the gadgets may be overused and could even damage the lungs of the infected,” Daily (April 9, 2020). Retrieved April 11, 2020, from

According to Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, an emergency medicine physician at Maimonides Medical Center,

[W]e are putting breathing tubes in people and putting them on ventilators and dialing up the pressure to open up their lungs.

I’ve talked to doctors all around the country and it is becoming increasingly clear that the pressure we’re providing may be hurting their lungs, that it is highly likely that the high pressures we’re using are damaging the lungs of the patients we are putting the breathing tubes in.

Cameron Kyle-Sidell, YouTube. Cited in Lorena Mongelli, Jackie Salo and Bruce Golding, “NYC doctor says high ventilator settings damage coronavirus patients’ lungs,” New York Post (April 6, 2020). Retrieved April 11, 2020, from

A deceptive pattern: arbitrary flu data and manipulation

Deceivers have patterns. The same government tricks to manipulate the perception of Americans regarding the Coronavirus has been used or proposed in the past. A case in point: the flu.

An eye-opening article is a 2005 piece in BMJ by Peter Doshi, titled, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?”

Doshi points out a statistical bias in arbitrarily bundling flu and pneumonia together as a cause of death. He writes:

annually [according to the CDC] “about 36 000 [Americans] die from flu” ( and “influenza/pneumonia” is the seventh leading cause of death in the United States ( But why are flu and pneumonia bundled together? Is the relationship so strong or unique to warrant characterising them as a single cause of death?

David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services, said, “People don’t necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus—the viraemia. What they die of is a secondary pneumonia. So many of these pneumonias are not viral pneumonias but secondary [pneumonias].” But Dr Rosenthal agreed that the flu/pneumonia relationship was not unique. For instance, a recent study (JAMA 2004;292:1955-60) found that stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic.

Peter Doshi, Are US flu death figures more PR than science?, BMJ, vol. 331 (December 10, 2005), Retrieved April 12, 2020, from

Doshi adds:

William Thompson of the CDC’s National Immunization Program (NIP), and lead author of the CDC’s 2003 JAMA article, explained that “influenza-associated mortality” is “a statistical association between deaths and viral data available.” He said that an association does not imply an underlying cause of death: “Based on modelling, we think it’s associated. I don’t know that we would say that it’s the underlying cause of death.”

Yet this stance is incompatible with the CDC assertion that the flu kills 36 000 people a year—a misrepresentation that is yet to be publicly corrected.


This sounds just like the current playbook of how Coronavirus death data is gathered. Just as the data of flu deaths has been inflated by blurring the lines between the flu and pneumonia, the data of Coronavirus deaths is inflated by blurring the lines between dying because of the Coronavirus, and dying with the Coronavirus.

Why? Obviously, to create a panic to trick people into being vaccinated. in one case, the flu vaccine. In the other, the upcoming Coronavirus vaccine. Which brings us to our next section.

(More about the flu and data manipulation here.)

Propaganda strategy slide from a presentation in 2004 titled “Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis,” sponsored by the
CDC and American Medical Association

The Coronavirus manipulation strategy eerily and openly promoted in 2004

This section doesn’t deal with data manipulation per se, but it does show a manipulative mindset that can easily lend itself to it. Moreover, it seems the manipulation of flu data we just discussed was to increase vaccination rates, which goes hand in hand with what we are discussing here.

In 2004, the CDC and American Medical Association sponsored a “National Influenza Vaccine Summit.” One presentation was “Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis” by Glen Nowak, Associate Director for Communications National Immunization Program.

The stated goal was:

To broaden understanding and thinking about influenza vaccination communication – especially when it comes to greatly increasing coverage.

Glen Nowak, Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis (CDC, Department of Health and Human Services). Retrieved April 12, 2020, from

In short, to use the media to manipulate people into getting the flu shot. This is clearly seen where he proposes a 7-step “’Recipe’ that Fosters Influenza Vaccine Interest and Demand.”

I want you to read this and see the chilling parallels between this and how we are being manipulated regarding the Coronavirus (leading up to eventually getting the Coronavirus vaccine). The talking points are more or less being implemented to the letter. This is directly from the presentation slides:

  1. Influenza’s arrival coincides with immunization “season” (i.e., when people can take action)
  2. Dominant strain and/or initial cases of disease are:
    – Associated with severe illness and/or outcomes
    – Occur among people for whom influenza is not generally perceived to cause serious complications (e.g., children, healthy adults, healthy seniors)
    – In cities and communities with significant media outlets
     (e.g., daily newspapers, major TV stations)
  3. Medical experts and public health authorities publicly (e.g., via media) state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes)– and urge influenza vaccination.
  4. The combination of ‘2’ and ‘3’ result in:
    A. Significant media interest and attention
    B. Framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as “very severe,” “more severe than last or past years,” “deadly”)
  5. Continued reports (e.g., from health officials and media) that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people– helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza.
  6. Visible/tangible examples of the seriousness of the illness (e.g., pictures of children, families of those affected coming forward) and people getting vaccinated (the first to motivate, the latter to reinforce)
  7. References to, and discussions, of pandemic influenza–along with continued reference to the importance of vaccination.
Another propaganda slide from a presentation in 2004 titled “Planning for the 2004-05 Influenza Vaccination Season: A Communication Situation Analysis,” sponsored by the
CDC and American Medical Association


The means by which deaths are being reported are unreliable, arbitrary, and deceptive.

First, careful distinctions are not made between dying from the Coronavirus and dying because of it. It is circular reasoning to hold that those who died with the Coronavirus died because of it when they had conditions that can be fatal on their own.

If one dies of a heart attack and happens to also have a cold, would it make sense to consider the cold as a cause of death? What if one dies of brain trauma from a fall, and, if flu symptoms are detected, the flu is considered a cause of death?

Moreover, why favor COVID-19 as a cause of death over other conditions, especially those shown again and again to lead to death? Shouldn’t we err on the side of countless historical examples over a new condition we know little about?

Second, PCR testing kits are seriously flawed. How much could this be inflating the death count? How many cases could be something else with similar symptoms? Could many of the cases be the flu, the cold, another respiratory problem, etc.? And we haven’t even discussed the possibility that much of the COVID-19 symptoms could be due to vaccination, geoengineering, and the implementation of 5G.

Then we have other variables, such as to what degree economic incentives are artificially increasing the official deaths rates. And a significant number of deaths thought to be due to COVID-19 could actually be due to ventilators to treat the illness.

Now, what percentage of reported deaths are actually due to Coronavirus, and what percentage are inflated? I really don’t know. One might think that the government wouldn’t go out of its way to openly require a bias in recording COVID-19 deaths unless it thought it would make a significant difference. But God only knows.

According to Dr. Annie Bukacek, who has filled out death certificates for over 30 years,

How many people have actually died from COVID-19 is anyone’s guess — God only knows. But based on how death certificates are beng filled out, you can be certain the number is substantially lower than what we are being told.

LibertyFellowshipMT, Montana physician Dr. Annie Bukacek discusses how COVID 19 death certificates are being manipulated, YouTube. Retrieved April 12, 2020, from

The way that deaths are being recorded to gain a desired outcome reminds me of how official causes of death have been manipulated throughout vaccine history to conveniently omit vaccines as a cause. Like a kangaroo court, the outcome is predetermined.

What we could see is that the criterion for determining Coronavirus deaths will suddenly become more stringent when they want us to believe that the illness is in decline. That is, with a stroke of a pen, Coronavirus “deaths” will suddenly and drastically decline so that we will come to see the “necessity” of the measures being taken – whether it be totalitarian government, or a mass vaccination program.

Indeed, back when the polio vaccine was released, polio itself was conveniently more stringently defined – eliminating cases of polio overnight. The same people who perpetuate the myth that vaccines eliminated polio are now pushing the arbitrarily determined number of deaths from the Coronavirus.

So, it’s a matter of trust, and the authorities have shown that they cannot be trusted.

So, who can we trust? Let us trust in Jesus, the Lord and Savior, for all things: salvation, protection, truth, and justice. We are in quite a bind with the state gaining control over seemingly everything, but we must realize that it can never have total control if we are of Christ.

Through Christ, truth will prevail.

See also our biblical critique of the Coronavirus fear pandemic here

Article posted with permission from Stephen Halbrook

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook and Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media