This story was a bit of a surprise to me, because at initial glance when I read it, I could not figure out why so many people had spotted it and sent it along to me. But it didn’t take long to figure out, once I read into the original article a ways.

What I am talking about is that study by “Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins,” that “crunched the numbers” relating to covid–19 deaths in the USA. She came to “certain conclusions” that were deleterious to the planscamdemic narrative (notice the presence of the word “delete” in “deleterious”; we’ll get back to that tout suite as my little French grandmother used to say to me when I was a boy and she wanted me to do something, and to do it now), so within a matter of a few days, Johns Hopkins had deleted the study, taken it down, and offered “reasons” for doing so. Here’s one article describing its “reasons” (this, again, was shared by many people):

Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has ‘Relatively No Effect on Deaths’ in U.S. Spiked After Publication

According to the article, Johns Hopkins offered the following “explanation”:

On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.”

What false and dangerous inaccuracies could those be?

Well, here’s another take:

A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety.

You’ll note that this second article links the original study being referred to, as  well as the entire text of Johns Hopkins’ “explanation” for taking it down, which is here:

A closer look at U.S. deaths due to COVID-19

Yup, sure enough, right there is Johns Hopkins’ “explanation”:

Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media. However, it is our responsibility as journalists to provide a historical record. We have chosen to take down the article from our website, but it is available here as a PDF.

In accordance with our standards for transparency, we are sharing with our readers how we came to this decision. The News-Letter is an editorially and financially independent, student-run publication. Our articles and content are not endorsed by the University or the School of Medicine, and our decision to retract this article was made independently.

Briand’s study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

As assistant director for the Master’s in Applied Economics program at Hopkins, Briand is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher. At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19 in the U.S.

In other words, the article was (1) not an official study of the university, but one of its students, (2) was not the study of a “medical professional nor a disease researcher”, and that leaves the conclusion that (3) her study was being “used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.”

But you’ll note that the Newsletter itself states that it has been a publication of the Johns Hopkins’ student association “since 1896.” To my mind, that makes the original publication even more, not less, interesting, because it means that at least one student at that institution, namely Ms. Briand herself, was not asleep, and was simply following the numbers, and doing what any rational and reasonable person would do when examining them: “doubting the narrative”.

So let’s return to the first article. What did she find?

After retrieving data on the CDC website, Briand compiled a graph representing percentages of total deaths per age category from early February to early September, which includes the period from before COVID-19 was detected in the U.S. to after infection rates soared.

Surprisingly, the deaths of older people stayed the same before and after COVID-19. Since COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, experts expected an increase in the percentage of deaths in older age groups. However, this increase is not seen from the CDC data. In fact, the percentages of deaths among all age groups remain relatively the same.

Having adopted the “using their own numbers” approach, Ms. Briand came to the following conclusion (which, let it be noted, is a conclusion many other researchers came to long ago:

According to the study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Wait, what? Really?

That’s what it says. And, it should come as no surprise that the study was deleted within days.

Then there is this article: A few days ago Johns Hopkins published a study saying corona is nbd. They then deleted it. Read it here in its entirety

This goes into greater depth about her method, and what she found:

These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.

This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?

To answer that question, Briand shifted her focus to the deaths per causes ranging from 2014 to 2020. There is a sudden increase in deaths in 2020 due to COVID-19. This is no surprise because COVID-19 emerged in the U.S. in early 2020, and thus COVID-19-related deaths increased drastically afterward.

Analysis of deaths per cause in 2018 revealed that the pattern of seasonal increase in the total number of deaths is a result of the rise in deaths by all causes, with the top three being heart disease, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia.

“This is true every year. Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes,” Briand pointed out.

When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes. (Emphasis added)

In other words, the implication is that the covid numbers are being “doctored” (not to coin a pun) in order to blow the covid narrative into a planscamdemic, sort of like noticing that suddenly spiking numbers for Briben correlate oddly with falling numbers for Trump. Nope, nothing to see here, we’re taking the study down because it needs further study (that will presumably agree with the predetermined narrative).

All of which leads me to wonder – and doubtless many of you may be wondering too – whether or not Dominion software is being used not only to “count” votes, but to count covid deaths… Or as a friend of mine (K.M.) put it to me, Scorecard and Hammer, or “PROMIS 2.0”. Information warfare anyone?

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised. The bottom line is, graph correlations do not prove manipulation of numbers (in either case), but they do give a reasonable basis to conclude that there may be a correlation, and that reasonable rational people are right to be suspicious.

Read More AT: