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.
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.
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.
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.