Whilst it's true that 6% of deaths occurred with no known auxiliary cause, that doesn't, whatsoever make the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" true, by any measure.
It's not a slam dunk like people are trying to pass it off as with this intellectually dishonest game of semantics.
If a person dies of the flu, but they were hypertensive, they likely wouldn't have been in a hypertensive crisis, statistically speaking, had they not encountered the flu.
I'm all for getting to the bottom of the true, but you don't fight semantics and fallacies with semantics and fallacies. You fight that bullshit with truth and this is not truth.
I have had similar concerns, and here is how I reconcile it:
I believe the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" is true, the issue for me is "by how much". If someone dies with co-morbidities, how does it affect the count? Do you get to cherry-pick which co-morbidity to count it against?
In your example, if someone were not hypertensive, would they have died of the flue? It is less likely. So hypertension is clearly a contributor. Shouldn't it be included in some count?
But we are dealing in meme warfare here, not intellectual debate. The point needs to be made quickly, as a way to spark discussion.
It is more of a headline, closer to the truth than the official numbers.
I agree with your sentiment, especially when people try to argue that the 6% of the cases were the only cases that should have been counted.
Whether they should’ve been counter or not is a worthy debate but it definitely goes to the threat to the perfectly healthy population. Because this all went undefined in their numbers it was used as a fear tactic to drive their agenda. True honest reporting would’ve again made this a much less severe panic driven flu. The inflated numbers in deaths and positives due to the shady testing all point to an agenda. Couple that with the hysterical push for the vaccine and and any thinking person would suspect foul play.
Which points to the answer that covid tests have false incredible false positives. For example check this table in this research paper from the NIH which analyzes the shortcomings of Covid-19 studies and says, "RT-PCR testing informs clinicians whether there is detectable virus present, but it cannot determine whether an individual is contagious. Infectivity in cell culture is the standard for determining whether a patient is infectious, but even this is a proxy for transmissibility. Currently, it is believed a Ct value below 24 is the threshold for being infectious."
(Table 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310638/)
There's also this research paper which describes how PCR tests are to be read and also gives an analysis of other tests administered.
Look at Table 1 which describes the methods of testing and claims 97% accuracy for PCR Tests, however...
(httpss://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/table/T1/?report=objectonly)
However in the paper says,
"a sample is usually judged positive for COVID-19 based on a Ct value of 35." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/#!po=61.6667)
...
"Furthermore, because the Ct value is inversely proportional to the amount of the target gene, there is also the disadvantage of a sample being interpreted as false negative in the early stages of COVID-19 infection without large amounts of virus multiplication, or depending on the accuracy of the swab."
...
"A recent study from China reported over 50% false negative cases using rRT-PCR tests for COVID-19. However, considering the accuracy of rRT-PCR, these high false negative results may be due to problems with the Ct cut-off value"
So technically they're telling the truth. There is 97% accuracy of the virus but that's when it's already present and using a low cut off value. I need to continue research but this I am slowly beginning to conclude that It's not accurate at all.
This all being paired together is starting to make more sense.
Agree... HOWEVER, one must also consider the AGENDA of the situation.
The evil motherfuckers wanted to lock down the whole world and force humanity into slavery (more than what we have now). In addition, they wanted (and still want) to ELIMINATE a large (millions or even billions) of humans from the planet.
These truths play a HUGE part in the overall conversation around the fuckery of these evil bastards, and I would suggest that their DECEPTION was exaggerated to support this agenda.
So yes, it matters that "covid" (or the flu or whatever) when compounded on top of other comorbidities is important to accurate counts, the evil agenda must also be considered. There... I feel better now.
Let's assume Covid19 exists in its true form...
Whilst it's true that 6% of deaths occurred with no known auxiliary cause, that doesn't, whatsoever make the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" true, by any measure.
It's not a slam dunk like people are trying to pass it off as with this intellectually dishonest game of semantics.
If a person dies of the flu, but they were hypertensive, they likely wouldn't have been in a hypertensive crisis, statistically speaking, had they not encountered the flu.
I'm all for getting to the bottom of the true, but you don't fight semantics and fallacies with semantics and fallacies. You fight that bullshit with truth and this is not truth.
I have had similar concerns, and here is how I reconcile it:
I believe the statement "COVID cases were over-counted" is true, the issue for me is "by how much". If someone dies with co-morbidities, how does it affect the count? Do you get to cherry-pick which co-morbidity to count it against?
In your example, if someone were not hypertensive, would they have died of the flue? It is less likely. So hypertension is clearly a contributor. Shouldn't it be included in some count?
But we are dealing in meme warfare here, not intellectual debate. The point needs to be made quickly, as a way to spark discussion.
It is more of a headline, closer to the truth than the official numbers.
I agree with your sentiment, especially when people try to argue that the 6% of the cases were the only cases that should have been counted.
Whether they should’ve been counter or not is a worthy debate but it definitely goes to the threat to the perfectly healthy population. Because this all went undefined in their numbers it was used as a fear tactic to drive their agenda. True honest reporting would’ve again made this a much less severe panic driven flu. The inflated numbers in deaths and positives due to the shady testing all point to an agenda. Couple that with the hysterical push for the vaccine and and any thinking person would suspect foul play.
The Headlines Giveth.
The Footnotes Taketh Away.
Which points to the answer that covid tests have false incredible false positives. For example check this table in this research paper from the NIH which analyzes the shortcomings of Covid-19 studies and says, "RT-PCR testing informs clinicians whether there is detectable virus present, but it cannot determine whether an individual is contagious. Infectivity in cell culture is the standard for determining whether a patient is infectious, but even this is a proxy for transmissibility. Currently, it is believed a Ct value below 24 is the threshold for being infectious." (Table 4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310638/)
There's also this research paper which describes how PCR tests are to be read and also gives an analysis of other tests administered. Look at Table 1 which describes the methods of testing and claims 97% accuracy for PCR Tests, however... (httpss://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/table/T1/?report=objectonly) However in the paper says, "a sample is usually judged positive for COVID-19 based on a Ct value of 35." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268832/#!po=61.6667) ... "Furthermore, because the Ct value is inversely proportional to the amount of the target gene, there is also the disadvantage of a sample being interpreted as false negative in the early stages of COVID-19 infection without large amounts of virus multiplication, or depending on the accuracy of the swab." ... "A recent study from China reported over 50% false negative cases using rRT-PCR tests for COVID-19. However, considering the accuracy of rRT-PCR, these high false negative results may be due to problems with the Ct cut-off value"
So technically they're telling the truth. There is 97% accuracy of the virus but that's when it's already present and using a low cut off value. I need to continue research but this I am slowly beginning to conclude that It's not accurate at all.
This all being paired together is starting to make more sense.
Agree... HOWEVER, one must also consider the AGENDA of the situation. The evil motherfuckers wanted to lock down the whole world and force humanity into slavery (more than what we have now). In addition, they wanted (and still want) to ELIMINATE a large (millions or even billions) of humans from the planet.
These truths play a HUGE part in the overall conversation around the fuckery of these evil bastards, and I would suggest that their DECEPTION was exaggerated to support this agenda.
So yes, it matters that "covid" (or the flu or whatever) when compounded on top of other comorbidities is important to accurate counts, the evil agenda must also be considered. There... I feel better now.