QuestionEverything

Well, they scrubbed that fast.

CaptThorazine

Having access to unlimited resoources allows ubiquitous censorship.

happyfacemcgee

Wow Johns Hopkins is involved with deep state activity. It’s amazing that all these regular working people are wanting an end to this bullshit. Likely even some that were part of getting the covid-psyop going are regretting it now.

Nobody wants to spend their life in their house not even the deep staters.

ardvarcus

I wonder when all this obvious proof that Covid-19 is not dangerous is going to impact the actions of our politicians?

Men13

Your own link from your previous post debunks this data.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm <- this is YOUR link from the previous post

See the column "percent of expected deaths" (of "deaths from all causes", comparing this year's deaths to last years)?

See how it starts very much near 100% in the first few weeks of 2020, then spikes to 142%?

Yeah, that's real and that's huge.

YOUR LINK, not mine.

Here instead you link to a blog about the data rather than the data itself. YOU ARE A LIAR. Go to hell.

CaptThorazine

I linked to Johns Hopkins' Newsletter not some blog. If you'd read the article before it got memory holed, you would have seen that the author compared 2018 to the current year. You'll have to try harder to sell your propaganda.

Helena73

The total number of deaths is nearly 2.6 million thats more than 11/12ths of 2.8 million, an unusually high year. But the provisonal death count is just that. The complete data takes months to be reported. The asterisk note indicates that at 8 weeks, the week generally is 75% or more complete. That means a big chunk of data is still outstanding 8 weeks after the end of the week. Look how low the numbers are over the last month. The data is missing. They haven’t even finished tallying September. If you compare each week to that week’s average over several years you see a significant increase in total deaths. This analyst in the article points out there has been an overall annual avg increase of 2% total deaths a year. After you take that into account we are still 14% over the normal death rate.

She also argues that deaths of elderly as a percent of overall deaths stayed the same. Which in someone’s twisted mind means the “death rate stayed the same” but that is bull shit. All age groups had increased deaths and the elderly had the most increase in raw numbers. I read this article carefully and another article that references this woman. It’s not saying what you think its saying. The title is very deceptive.

Men13

You know the John's Hopkins Newsletter is a STUDENT paper, and not published by the university itself, right?

And you know your link doesn't work anymore because they published something wrong, so they retracted it, right?

And why do you trust "the author"? Why not compare the data yourself? You have the data, right? Just look at it. God gave you eyes, no? You're able to look at things yourself rather than trust others, no?

How about you do that and see the truth for yourself?

Or is the truth inconvenient to your narrative?

BoozyB

I sent the link to my daughter. She was involved with the 'student paper' when she attended Hopkins some years ago. This is not a piece about the laCrosse team.

The article in question would certainly have been cleared through an editorial board or faculty.

It says JHU on the header and reflects the reputation, if not the opinion of the school.

Nice try, though.

Men13

It says JHU on the header and reflects the reputation

It in fact does NOT say JHU in the header, which you would know if you ever actually tried to follow the link.

So that's a lie.

She was involved with the 'student paper' when she attended Hopkins some years ago

I don't believe you. At all.

The article in question would certainly have been cleared through an editorial board or faculty

It in fact would NOT have been, since it's not associated with the university.

So every sentence you wrote is a lie. Nice.

BoozyB

Sir,

The publication is called the Johns Hopkins News-Letter

Published by the students of Johns Hopkins since 1896

It's very well identified.

I know more than you think I do about it.

You're in over your head.
Have a nice evening. And calm down.

Men13

You claimed it has JHU in the header. That's a lie.

You claimed the faculty would have to approve of its content. That is a lie.

You apparently don't know that much about it.

Also, they retracted and erased the article because it was wrong. So there you go.

BoozyB

Title Here

archive link in case it's disappeared soon.

favoritecoloriswhite

Archive of the archive: https://archive.fo/Dfq6H

CaptThorazine

Which it did.

lord_nougat

Is best hopkins?

BoozyB

The author's webpage. Title Here

How this study saw the light of day is of interest to me. Somebody higher up allowed this to be published.

I think Trump's enemies are commencing some CYA activities.

Michael Bloomberg (JHU '64) is by far Johns Hopkins University's largest benefactor, probably a couple billion in all.

CaptThorazine

It has already been memory holed.