Discover more from Resisting the Intellectual Illiteratti
CDC commits fraud to cover up fraud
CDC's statements defending why they are fraudulently omitting vaccine injury ICD codes from death certificates don't pass the smell test and are themselves fraudulent
A recent article I wrote accusing the CDC of fraudulently altering death certificates prompted a pair of reporters to ask the CDC for comment. CDC spokespeople issued the following statements to explain why the CDC had failed to apply the appropriate ICD codes for vaccine injuries on death certificates that identified a covid vaccine as a Cause of Death (COD):
The paragraph inside the green box is repeating the exact claims of the first statement with minor cosmetic changes in the language. The paragraph in red is highlighted to emphasize the heightened degree of demented insanity (even for the CDC) in the claims asserted in this paragraph.
The goal of this article is to rebut the substance of the CDC’s claims explaining why ICD codes were not applied for covid vaccine injuries in the majority of cases they were identified as a Cause of Death on death certificates.
***To this end, we will show that the CDC’s statements defy elementary common sense; are logically incoherent; are inconsistent with the CDC’s own standards; asserts a standard that lacks any material justification; and, most importantly, are themselves a willful, deliberate misrepresentation of material facts for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the public about the existence and scope of covid vaccine injuries/deaths.***
A month ago I published an article documenting seven Minnesota deaths where the death certificate identified a covid vaccine as a cause of death, but the CDC did not apply an appropriate ICD code:
I also published a twitter thread highlighting these deaths (screenshot is linked to the tweet):
The substack article was then republished by Brownstone under the title CDC Altered Minnesota Death Certificates that List a Covid Vaccine as a Cause of Death. (Special thanks to Liz Collin of Alpha News, who first contacted CDC & was the impetus for me asking Brownstone to republish the article.)
The salient points of this accusation are as follows (see the above-linked substack article for the full explanation):
A coroner writes a text description of all medical conditions or events that contributed to the death, referred to as a “Cause/s of Death” (COD)
The CDC applies an alphanumeric code from the ICD10 database of medical codes for every listed COD
There are TWO ICD codes that are typically used for vaccine injuries: T88.1 & Y59.0
(There are at least two other ICD codes that can be used, T88.8 & Y59.9, which would technically fit for covid vaccine side effects; however, we have not found any death certificates that contained either of these)
There were nine death certificates in Minnesota that identified a covid vaccine as a COD, but the CDC applied T88.1 or Y59.0 on only TWO out the nine. **Ergo, the CDC refused to apply a vaccine ICD code for seven of the nine death certificates that identified a covid vaccine as a COD**
The substance of the CDC’s response - what precisely is the CDC claiming here?
“The claim in the blog post that CDC applies ICD-10 codes improperly is incorrect. The ICD-10 codes in question pertain to adverse effects of vaccines, not vaccination per se. Vaccination is not a disease or cause of death, so simple mention of the vaccine or vaccination without mention of adverse effects will not get coded. The blog post actually supports this. The examples in the post for which the adverse effects codes are included are those that mention adverse or side effects of the vaccine. The examples for which the codes are not included do not contain such language.”
The claims put forward by the CDC’s statement can be broken down into the following individual premises:
The CDC did not incorrectly apply ICD codes, nor did the CDC fail to apply the appropriate ICD codes
The ICD codes T88.1 & Y59.0 only refer to side effects caused by a vaccine, but not the mere fact or act of vaccination
There is a material, substantial difference between side effects of a vaccine, and the fact or act of vaccination in the context of identifying potential contributing factors to the death of the decedent (i.e. “vaccination” by itself cannot be thought of as something that can have an adverse effect on health)
A text description on a death certificate that identifies only that the decedent was vaccinated but does not explicitly spell out that there were side effects caused by the vaccine conveys a different meaning than a text description that explicitly articulates that the vaccine caused side effect/s:
If the text only describes the fact of vaccination without mentioning side effects of the vaccine, the natural meaning conveyed in the context of filling out a death certificate is that the vaccine was not a relevant factor which contributed to the death
If the text explicitly articulates that there were side effects of a vaccine, the natural meaning conveyed in the context of filling out a death certificate is that the vaccination caused side effects that contributed to the death
The people who fill out death certificates area aware of the above distinctions. In other words, if they only write that the decedent was vaccinated, but do not spell out expressly that the vaccine caused side effects, they mean to convey that the vaccine did not contribute to the death in any way
***Put simply, the CDC is asking us to believe that if a coroner documents a covid vaccine as a COD on a death certificate without explicitly spelling out that there were side effects from the vaccine, the most reasonable and correct interpretation is that the vaccine did NOT contribute to the death.***
Does this hold up to scrutiny? Let’s see.
Part 1 of our rebuttal continues below, Part 2 here:
Part A -- CDC’s statement defies elementary common sense
It is obvious from a cursory look at the death certificates that the CDC’s claims are absurd. Consider the following death certificate, which spells out that the decedent felt sick after vaccination. . . *THREE* days before dropping dead:
Does anyone (honestly) think that this can be reasonably interpreted as “the vaccine was NOT a contributing factor to the death”???
The depth of the CDC’s treason against rationality here goes much further, however.
The CDC’s claim wouldn’t withstand the scrutiny of a 10-year-old child
To fully appreciate how far astray the CDC’s claims depart from scientific reasoning, it is necessary to understand the fundamentals of how death certificates are filled out.
A-1. Official CDC guidance for filling out death certificates
The CDC has a document entitled ‘Instructions for Completing the Cause-of-Death Section of the Death Certificate’, which instructs coroners on how to document causes of death on the death certificate.
»“The cause-of-death information should be YOUR best medical OPINION”«
The main point here is that the CDC - in no uncertain terms - declares that the COD’s represent the medical opinion of the person filling out the death certificate.
The CDC even uses multiple text highlighters to emphasize this point, bolding the entire sentence and putting the words “YOUR” & “OPINION” in all-caps.
This is a critical point to understand. Even per the CDC, COD’s are usually not a precise science, rather a judgment call by a medical professional. Furthermore, not all medical professionals are equally expert in deducing COD’s. The upshot of this is that COD’s do not represent a decisive or definitive scientific determination, rather they represent the personal opinion/judgment of whomever filled out the death certificate.
Takeaway: The inescapable conclusion from this guidance is that COD’s on a death certificate are specifically meant to convey the OPINION OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WROTE THE COD’s. Thus, they must be interpreted from the standpoint of “what did the coroner mean by writing ______?”.
A-2. Competency of the people who fill out death certificates
It is well-known that most medical professionals are woefully undertrained (if at all) in filling out death certificates. There are even a number of studies highlighting that there is a substantial degree of inaccuracies in death certificates, such as:
Regarding vaccination specifically, it is inevitable that coroners in general would be even less familiar with the technical minutiae of how to properly write out vaccination as a COD because of its extreme rarity to be identified as a COD at all. (Consider that there was only ONE death certificate out of >230,000 deaths in Minnesota between 2015-2019 where a vaccine was listed as a COD.)
It stands to reason that someone filling out a death certificate would not be apprised of the specific requirements for how to properly reference a vaccine injury, certainly not of the obtuse CDC standards articulated in their statement.
Takeaway: There is no reason to think that coroners would know that they must write “side effects” or other materially similar language in order to document a vaccine injury as a COD.
A-3. The ordinary or commonly understood meaning of language
There are basic conventions standards by which we use language to communicate meaning. One of the most routine and fundamental means of parsing the meaning of words is inferring meaning from context. The context within which words are used is often critical to understanding what they are meant to convey.
In the context of a COD on a death certificate, we can make the following assumptions about the language used:
It is intended to convey a medical condition or event
It is intended to convey that, in the opinion of the coroner, what is described contributed to causing the death
The language used is a straightforward description that does not rely on indirect literary mechanisms to communicate its meaning (e.g., you do not have to engage in any sort of fancy literary analysis in order to figure out the meaning of the words)
When we see a reference to a covid vaccine on a death certificate, we can presume it fulfills the above three conditions. In other words, a plain reference to a covid vaccine as a COD obviously conveys that the vaccination represents a medical condition which contributed to the death.
Takeaway: The only reasonable interpretation of a plain reference to a covid vaccine on a death certificate is that it is meant to convey that the vaccine caused an adverse reaction/s that contributed to the death
A-4. Clinical narrative of the death
The last factor to consider in a “common sense analysis” of language specifying a covid vaccine as a COD is the clinical narrative of the death. For each listed COD, the coroner is supposed to document how much time passed from when the condition identified as a COD first manifested or occurred, and the death itself. The CDC also provides extensive instructions on how to document the etiology of a COD (i.e. how the medical condition developed or came to be).
If a death certificate describes a chain of events where it is obvious that the covid vaccine could have contributed to the death, that is an additional point indicating the likelihood that the covid vaccine was indeed a contributory factor to the death. The CDC’s insistence that we should arbitrarily suspend observation of the obvious from consideration is silly and specious. And if the CDC cannot integrate such a basic analytical tool into their own processes for applying ICD codes, it calls into question the competency and qualifications of the CDC to manage these datasets altogether.
Takeaway: The clinical narrative of the death itself can indicate that the vaccine played a role in causing the death
It is elementary common sense that a coroner who lists a covid vaccine as a Cause of Death intends to convey that the vaccine may have contributed to causing the death. Indeed, if we look at the death certificate we showed earlier, there is no plausible interpretation of this other than that the covid vaccine was identified by the coroner as having likely contributed to causing the death:
Even if we suspend all rationality and take the CDC at its word here, the CDC’s contentions are ridiculous and petty. Since there is no material difference between the intended meaning of “vaccination” and “side effects of vaccination” as a COD, what the CDC is trying to claim essentially amounts to nitpicking over the syntax of coroners filling out death certificates.
The proposition that the integrity of the Nation’s primary epidemiological datasets is dependent upon sophomoric, bureaucratic nitpicking over irrational technical requirements is as preposterous as it is disturbing.
That the CDC is staking a position in defiance of cardinal logic is itself evidence that the CDC is lying.
And if we grant the CDC earnestly believes what it professes to the public here, what does that say about the state of the supposed “experts” at a [once-] vaunted agency that they could be swayed by thinly predicated arguments whose manifestly deficient reasoning is obvious to a 10 year old?
It would seem that for the CDC, the answer is a resounding “NO!!”. Or at least the CDC expects that the public isn’t.
Part B -- The CDC’s statement is logically incoherent
When analyzed, some of the individual elements of the CDC’s statement do not express an intelligible point.
B-1. There is no intelligible concept of “vaccinated without any adverse effect” in the context of being identified as a COD
The CDC asserts “Vaccination is not a disease or cause of death, so simple mention of the vaccine or vaccination without mention of adverse effects will not get coded”.
There is no plausible or comprehensible interpretation of referencing vaccination status as a CAUSE of Death other than that the vaccine initiated a reaction, pathology, or side effect/s that helped to cause the death. A COD inherently must, at minimum, have had an adverse effect upon the health of the decedent. It is incomprehensible to pretend, as the CDC does, that the plain reference to vaccination as a COD is intended to convey that the decedent was vaccinated without any adverse reaction to the vaccine.
Takeaway: The CDC’s assertion that identifying vaccination as a COD means that the vaccination had no side effects and did NOT contribute to the death is logically incoherent
B-2. There is no material or even cognizable distinction between “vaccination” and “side effects of vaccination” vis-à-vis the ability to cause death
It is a tautology that side effects of a vaccine are caused by the vaccine. This is indisputable. To claim, as the CDC does, that there is a distinction between “vaccination” and “side effects of vaccination” - whereby “vaccination” is “not a cause of death” but “side effects of vaccination” can be a causal factor contributing to death - is a logical impossibility.
Remember, to qualify as a COD, a condition need not directly cause the death. It is sufficient that a condition or event merely cause or initiate an adverse effect to one’s health to be considered a causal factor to the death.
If the vaccine can cause something which in turn causes death, then the vaccine necessarily can cause death as well, albeit one additional step removed from the death itself.
Conversely, if vaccination is inherently precluded from being considered a cause of death, then it must follow that all substances that have toxic effects on human anatomy are likewise precluded from consideration as a COD, because the substance itself merely initiates “side effects” that are the COD, but is not itself a cause of death anymore than a vaccine is. Yet, there are many categories of ICD codes for a variety of toxic substances, and the CDC did not withhold ICD codes on the innumerable death certificates that describe a toxic substance without specifically spelling out “side effects of”.
Takeaway: There is no logical or intelligible distinction between “vaccination” and “side effects caused by vaccination” in the context of a COD, because side effects of vaccination must be caused by the vaccine
B-3. The application of the principles articulated in the CDC’s statement to the language on the death certificates in question is incoherent
According to the CDC’s statement, vaccination only counts if they “mention adverse or side effects of the vaccine. The examples for which the codes are not included do not contain such language.”
However, it is challenging to discern a cogent standard for what language constitutes a statement of “side effects” if we look at the actual language of the death certificates in question.
“Secondary to influenza vaccination” is acceptable language to refer to “side effects” --
-- but “felt sick after the vaccine” is not?
The language “felt sick after the vaccine” is an unambiguous description of a vaccine side effect. If language fulfills the following two criteria, then it is obviously describing a vaccine side effect:
It describes a medical condition or state
It attributes the medical condition to the identified source, i.e. the vaccine
The language “felt sick after the vaccine” fulfills both prongs - it identifies a condition - “feeling sick” - and attributes it to the vaccine - “after the vaccine”. It is not legitimate to interpret “after the vaccine” as only stating a temporal sequence of events but not necessarily attributing the “feeling sick” to the vaccine. The plain meaning of stating that someone “felt sick” following something, especially in the context of covid vaccines, which are known to cause systemic side effects in the majority of people who are vaccinated, is that there is a causal link between the vaccine and the onset of “feeling sick”.
That we have to explain at length rudimentary, self-evident conventions of language is testament to the abstruse lunacy of the CDC. Formulated in consilient immature prose, “The Cray-Cray is STRONG with the CDC.” Indeed, how the mighty have fallen.
Thus, even per the CDC’s own articulated standard, this language should qualify for a vaccine side effects ICD code. Ergo, the CDC’s statement cannot apply to all of the death certificates in question.
Part C -- The CDC’s statement cannot be reconciled with the standards used for other COD’s
Put simply, a standard for coding COD’s must be consistent across different types of COD’s. It would be inconsistent, and moreover, it would be obviously corrupt, for the CDC to apply ICD codes for injuries sustained from being shot with an AR15, but not apply ICD codes for the exact same injuries if they were sustained from being shot with a handgun.
It is unremarkable that of course the CDC engages in such duplicity. When it comes to vaccines, the CDC boldly adventures forth with the application of unique and novel standards segregating vaccines as a class of condition unto itself apart from all others.
C-1. “History of” without any identification of a causal link
We need only consider the following to understand this point:
There is no universe where you can articulate a coherent standard by which a history of a resolved covid infection 7-8 months prior can be considered as having contributed to the death, but vaccination TEN HOURS PRIOR TO DEATH is not considered to have even possibly contributed to the death.
Takeaway: Whereas for other COD’s, the CDC accepts a “prior history” of something - even something long since resolved - as possibly contributing to the death, a vaccination hours prior to death is confidently dismissed by the CDC as categorically unrelated.
C-2. For other conditions, the CDC accepts language that describes something clinically irrelevant to the death
The CDC states “The ICD-10 codes in question pertain to adverse effects of vaccines, not vaccination per se. Vaccination is not a disease or cause of death, so simple mention of the vaccine or vaccination without mention of adverse effects will not get coded.”
As we pointed out earlier, the CDC is claiming here that, firstly, this language that merely describes the act or fact of vaccination is interpreted by the CDC to convey that the decedent was vaccinated without any adverse effects; and secondly, that vaccination itself is not something that has any clinical impact on health.
However, this standard seems to be unique to vaccines. The CDC accepts language such as “covid-19 positive” as sufficient to apply the U07.1 ICD code for covid disease as a COD:
It is axiomatic that a positive test result is not a clinical pathology nor something that has any impact on one’s health. So in order for the CDC to apply the U07.1 ICD code for covid, the CDC must interpret the language of “positive covid-19 test” to convey that the decedent had the clinical covid disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Yet the CDC claims that language such as “vaccinated 10 hours prior to death” cannot be interpreted to convey that the covid vaccine had adverse effects that may have contributed to the death.
The case that the language of “positive covid test” identifies something that had a tangible impact on a decedent’s health is far weaker than the case supporting that language such as “vaccinated for covid-19” identifies something that had a tangible impact on a decedent’s health:
A positive covid test may not even indicate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to the profligate degree of false positives of the tests used
If the decedent suffered clinical covid disease, the death certificate would probably state so explicitly with language like “covid” “covid disease” “covid symptoms”. If the only description is of the positive test result, that implies asymptomatic covid at best, which obviously does not cause death. (The most likely scenario where such language would be used is that the coroner simply found a record of ‘positive covid test’ in the patient’s records.)
Vaccination, however, is something that would only be documented if the person filling out the death certificate judged that the covid vaccine had an adverse impact on the health of the decedent that may have contributed to the death. Keep in mind that there was (and still is) enormous pressure on healthcare staff by the medical establishment and authorities to avoid doing or saying anything that could portray the covid vaccines negatively. So a coroner identifying a covid vaccine as a COD would also be potentially subjecting him- or herself to significant professional and social sanction - not risks that would be entertained simply in order to (mis-)identify the ‘irrelevant’ fact of the decedent’s vaccination.)
Thus the CDC’s special consideration of the precise technical meaning for vaccination is unmitigated rank hypocrisy. On the one hand, the CDC affirms dubious language like “covid-19 positive” - which is in all likelihood capturing a clinically meaningless ghost - can be interpreted to convey the presence of clinical covid disease. Yet the CDC simultaneously insists that language such as “vaccinated 10 hours prior to death” can only be understood to convey the precise technical fact of vaccination, however nonsensical, unintelligible and obviously false this is. The sheer chutzpah of the CDC is astonishing.
To further illustrate the double standard here, if we swap in “covid-19 positive” for “vaccination” in the CDC’s statement, we get the following:
The ICD-10 codes in question pertain to adverse effects of covid, not a positive test result per se. A positive result on a covid test is not a disease or cause of death, so simple mention of the positive covid test without mention of covid disease will not get coded.
This version is actually far more sensible and compelling than the CDC’s asinine contention that the language of vaccination does not describe something that is clinically relevant to the death.
Takeaway: Whereas for other COD’s the CDC accepts language that likely refers to a clinically irrelevant factor as a COD, for vaccines the CDC insists that the language describing the vaccine must be impossible to interpret, even superficially, as referring to ‘vaccination without side effects’.
C-3. The CDC accepts COD’s that are implausible or clearly erroneous for other conditions
One of the elements of the CDC’s explanation for not applying the vaccine injury ICD codes is that vaccines in a vacuum cannot be reasonably considered to cause death - “Vaccination is not a disease or cause of death” to quote their language.
However, the CDC elsewhere applies ICD codes even for conditions that are obviously not plausibly connected to the death, especially when it came to covid.
While the phenomenon of aggressive over-coding of covid deaths is an already-proven and widely-agreed upon phenomenon, it is worth showcasing the degree to which deaths were attributed to covid in defiance of the clear facts of the death.
The following statement was actually made by Public Health Director Dr. Ngozi Ezike at a press conference:
"So, the case definition is very simplistic. It means at the time of death, it was a COVID-positive diagnosis. So that means that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means that, technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death."
Vetting covid deaths has turned up a wide variety of comically attributed ‘covid’ deaths where the covid was clearly clinically irrelevant to the death. Consider the above-mentioned death certificate:
No reasonable person would presume there is any basis to think that covid contributed to the death of this man in any meaningful way. The death itself was caused by injuries resulting from the blunt force trauma of his fall. Furthermore, as we observed earlier, there is no indication of covid *disease* here, rather the death certificate only mentions that the decedent was “covid-19 positive”. A positive test result does not contribute to death, and may not even necessarily indicate the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the first place.
Clearly, then, the CDC applies ICD codes even for listed conditions that lack a plausible basis to suspect they might have contributed to causing the death.
C-4. The CDC applies heightened scrutiny only to vaccines despite inaccuracies that are far more consequential and widespread in their coding of other conditions
If we are to accept the CDC’s assertions at face value, the CDC is stipulating that they went out of their way to program their algorithm to exclude references to vaccines that do not explicitly use language materially similar to “side effects of” when describing the vaccination on the death certificate.
Yet, the CDC seems content to allow for far worse errors more easily prevented or rectified.
Although in order to demonstrate this is true systematically would require its own article, we can showcase the CDC’s hypocritical and myopic focus on vaccines far more than any other condition with one of the very death certificates the CDC is claims was correctly coded:
This death certificate is a comical train of ‘errors’, even setting aside the failure to assign T881 or Y590 for the covid booster.
Firstly, the CDC assigned ICD code ‘W34’. W34 refers to injuries suffered from the accidental discharge of a firearm. There was no gun or gunshot injury in the history of this decedent (something which was also confirmed by the family). How did the algorithm make such a wild ‘mistake’? It seems that the algorithm parsed the phrase “recent covid booster shot” by ignoring the words “recent covid booster” and only coding for the word “shot”.
The ‘incompetence’ here is staggering - it is difficult to fathom that even a novice programmer could make such a careless and obvious blunder.
Yet it somehow gets worse.
Not only did the CDC apply W34, it designated it as the UCoD (underlying cause of death). The UCoD refers to “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury”. The UCoD is supposed to be the lowest cause in Part 1 - which in this instance is Cause B - “Pneumonia, likely community acquired”. The UCoD can NEVER be a CoD listed in Part 2 (referred to in the screenshot above as ‘Other Causes’).
Takeaway: The CDC demands a far more rigorous degree of scrutiny and far greater technical precision for vaccines than for any other condition when applying ICD codes, even though other conditions suffer from far greater inaccuracies that are far more systemic and widespread.
Part D -- The CDC’s statement fails to provide a material justification for its choice to omit vaccine injury ICD’s
Even if everything the CDC says in their statement is technically correct, the CDC still fails to offer any explanation that justifies omitting ICD codes for COD’s identifying a covid vaccine.
The objectives of having a standardized coding system for COD’s are, firstly, to maintain the accuracy and integrity of morbidity and mortality data; and secondly, to enable the pooling of the data from all 50 states and other jurisdictions together for study and analysis.
There is no material benefit from omitting vaccine injury ICD codes from a handful of death certificates. Even if, as the CDC protests, applying the ICD codes here would be a material misrepresentation of the true clinical causes of the deaths in question, it would still not amount to something that has negative cognizable downstream effects. Because of the extreme scarcity of death certificates documenting a covid vaccine as a COD, anyone performing an analysis or study using these data can easily adjust for these ‘erroneously’ coded COD’s manually with minimal effort. Neither can a unicorn this uncommon adulterate the picture presented by the totality, or even any subset, of these data - there simply exist far too few instances to create the mirage of a systematic phenomenon.
By contrast, there are substantial downsides to the CDC’s decision to excise these references to covid vaccines on death certificates.
Firstly, omitting vaccine injury ICD codes on death certificates will be viewed by a large portion of the public as de facto corruption. Additionally, in the context of the societal imbroglio regarding the covid vaccines, affirmative actions by the CDC to minimize the presence of the adverse consequences of covid vaccines further embroils the CDC in fraught political controversy. The self-inflicted reputational damage already incurred by the CDC has ballooned into a full-fledged crisis of faith by the public in the CDC. It would surely behoove the CDC to at least avoid further pointless self-immolation. And if the CDC has such little regard for its own reputation that it is willing to carelessly sacrifice it for naught, it signals an agency incorrigibly run amok that ought be abolished altogether.
Secondly, by exercising an administrative veto over coroners who bear the primary responsibility for adjudicating COD’s, the CDC casts a pall over the integrity of all data under its purview. It is inevitable that the specter of the distant official far-removed from the “facts on the ground” voiding the considered opinion of the local coroner will be perceived as improprietous if not nakedly fraudulent manipulation. No good can come of spoiling the entirety of the Nation’s data with the taint of politically opportunistic corruption.
Thirdly, there is intrinsic value that standardized epidemiological datasets hew as closely and accurately as possible to the underlying data they purport to represent. Omitting ICD codes for COD’s stipulated on death certificates creates a wedge between the source information and the datasets. Future researchers, scientists or interested lay-citizens are unlikely to be aware of information fallen through such administrative crevices, rendering invisible potentially valuable context or insights often available from even a very limited number cases.
The decision by the CDC to omit ICD codes on death certificates stipulating a covid vaccine as a COD is ill conceived and bereft of any tangible benefit, irrespective of whether the CDC’s tortured logic supporting its choice can withstand scrutiny.
Although a proper response to the additional comments made by the CDC in its second statement must be left for another time, there is one point worth highlighting as it pertains to assessing the CDC’s principal claims we are adjudicating here.
The second paragraph of the CDC statement claims as follows:
COVID-19 vaccines are undergoing the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history. To date, CDC has not detected any unusual or unexpected patterns for deaths following immunization that would indicate that COVID vaccines are causing or contributing to deaths, outside of the nine confirmed TTS deaths following the Janssen vaccine.
There are numerous STUDIES that document autopsies of deaths that occurred shortly following vaccination with a covid vaccine, where the death was attributed to the covid vaccine.
The meta review of vaccine death autopsies posted on The Lancet was pulled this morning after being up less than 24 hours:
Which is quite a remarkable coincidence. . .
I put together a list of case reports documenting DEATHS associated with the covid vaccines a while back (there have been enough new autopsy reports since then to justify a Part 2):
OCTOBER 30, 2022
If the CDC can issue such a profoundly egregious lie to the public, which is incontrovertibly debunked by literally dozens of studies, the CDC has no credibility whatsoever regarding *anything* it claims.
Thus we should presume that of course the CDC is lying wholesale regarding the standards by which it assigns ICD codes on death certificates.
Indeed, it is fascinating that “the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history” failed to notice the strongest safety signal in history:
(Chart courtesy of Dr. Jessica Rose)
Part 2 Continued here: