More Dialogue with Denis Rancourt About the New York City 2020 Event & Data

Denis Rancourt reacted to my post yesterday via Substack Note.

Notes are difficult to keep track of and don’t have a search or sorting system, so I’ve copied the text below, and my response, for ease of documentation.

I’ll add any additional exchanges to this post; otherwise, I look forward reading the forthcoming report on U.S. data that Dr. Rancourt mentions and hope my response clarifies my position for both him and for readers.

Denis Rancourt, 1 October 2024

Jessica states: “My belief about the NYC event at this point is that it is unsubstantiated mass casualty event that appears fraudulent & staged”

She means that the all-cause mortality data for NYC during the Covid period is “fraudulent & staged”. Fine, one is free to believe whatever.

Trust in gov is not 0 or 1. One must decide the probability that each given public database might be “fraudulent & staged”, and to what degree. In my evaluation, I see no reason to conclude that the NYC data in question is “fraudulent & staged”. I think there is a small probability that this could be the case. I have concluded that the said data is as reliable as pre-Covid period all-cause mortality data for the USA, which is very reliable, identifiable administrative errors notwithstanding.

One of our next reports takes a deep dive, more than previously, into the USA and NY data, in high spatial and temporal resolution. We see no artifacts or features that would suggest manipulated or fraudulent data. We see consistent trends across all factors: place of death, institution type, age, etc.

We don’t see what Jessica believes.

We therefore apply the simplest working hypothesis: the all-cause mortality data by time and jurisdiction (in the USA) is reliable, not fabricated or manipulated. We assume this until we see evidence that would suggest the opposite. We don’t see the points raised by Jessica as meeting that threshold. And yes, having all the death certificates would be great.

Jessica Hockett, 2 October 2024

Thank you for responding directly to something I have written, via a Note, versus responding about something Mike Yeadon had said about an article I wrote, and then posting a comment on two other Substacks. IIRC, you subscribed to my Substack at one point; I no longer see your name on the list. LMK if I am mistaken.

1. You have conflated my assertions and are incorrect to say, “[Jessica] means that the all-cause mortality data for NYC during the Covid period is ‘fraudulent & staged’.” In yesterday’s post, I said, “My belief about the NYC event at this point is that it is unsubstantiated mass casualty event that appears fraudulent & staged.” This is a holistic characteristic of the event, NOT of the data. I have never characterized the data as “staged.” I have said the all-cause death curve is manipulated in magnitude, timing, or both. I have also said simulated 9-1-1 calls are possible. Moreover, it is NOT merely “the Covid period” I believe is manipulated: It is the 2020 daily death curve and numerous underlying curves. The NYC EVENT I believe is completely staged, which does not mean "extra" people didn't die. Please do not misrepresent my position.

2. Data aside, we necessarily agree the event is fraudulent because government is representing deaths to be largely the work of a novel pathogen, which it wasn’t. Pandemics are not possible, as far as I can tell, and are creatures of social/political science and economics.

3. I operate on a zero-trust policy with governing authorities; I can’t speak for you.

4. Basic proof pre-empts probability. We don’t need to guess about likelihood when records aren’t privatized.

5. If you are now saying you believe there is a chance the NYC data could be manipulated, that is good, but this appears to be a departure from what you have previously asserted in your papers and to me & colleagues directly. Is my impression that you have now moderated your stance correct?

6. You never replied when I showed you that two claims you made about NYC mortality were incorrect, per official data: Here you said NYC normally experiences 106K deaths a year, which is nearly double what the reported numbers are. You also said NYC had prior experience handling the number of bodies that were purportedly handled in spring 2020. I showed you with daily data from 1999-2020 that is NOT the case. (It’s also not true for 1918, as I’ve already shown.) woodhouse.substack.com/p/there-is-simpl…Can you concede you were mistaken?

7. What are “identifiable administrative errors”? Please provide examples. Errors, however unintended, would still result in a manipulated or fraudulent curve according to my criteria, which I spelled out clearly here: woodhouse76.com/p/the-f-word I mention this because I want you and observers to note that my definition of manipulation/fraud does NOT require a particular motive on the part of whomever such “errors” would be blamed. I am saying the curve is fraudulent if the number of people who are claimed to have died on each day in the settings/places claimed is false.

8. As you know, “reliable” and “valid” aren’t the same things. The U.S. government could be lying consistently, just like a broken scale. I have speculated that a “save up to spend down” approach could’ve been used in a planned operation, certainly in particular cities like New York. I am suspicious of the 20-year “trend”. [Image below]

   

9. I see no indication that you have read the “11 Serious Problems” article and the corresponding data. As I said in yesterday’s post, the thrust of this summary was NOT about fraudulent data, and it wasn’t primarily written for people like yourself who already say there was no pandemic, no new cause of death, etc. It is the claim about the number of deaths is hospitals that is the most outrageous. I did not lay out a case for that, but there are strong signals of manipulation in discrepancies between data reported by NYC’s public hospital system. Please see woodhouse76.com/p/update-still-attempti… and this Note about the Elmhurst discrepancy (which is in the 11 Serious Problems article as well). substack.com/profile/32813354-jessica-h…

10. I look forward to your upcoming report. When you say “high spatial and temporal resolution,” do you mean you have analyzed daily data at the city/county level? Obviously, I can’t respond to what you’ve concluded until I read the report.

11. I think it’s important for you to recognize you are not looking at the same level or types of data that I am. That matters because in order for you to say, “We don’t see what Jessica sees,” you would need to be looking at daily data and data of various kinds – NOT just death.

12. Re: “We don’t see the points raised by Jessica as meeting that threshold.” Assuming you mean the “11 Serious Problems” article, which points are you saying I raised with respect to manipulation? What “threshold”?

13. Finally, we have a slightly different view on death certificates: You say, “having all the death certificates would be great,” whereas I contend that NO death data should be taken at face value until/unless death certificates are made public. The recording and reporting of death – and the storage of the records and associated data -- is largely a social/political science endeavor, subject to various biases, errors, and (yes) manipulation. The potential for manipulation is magnified in the digital era.

14. In your responses on Jonathan Engler’s and Lioness of Judah Ministry’s Substacks, you quoted Mike Yeadon’s reaction to my article, not a data point from the article itself.

    To be clear, NYC constituting 40% of Home COVID deaths of all such deaths in the U.S. in April 2020 was a point within 9) No In-Depth Study of Home Death Event? Suddenly dying of COVID at Home is preposterous and is fraud in and of itself, everything else notwithstanding. I think you & I agree on that. What’s unclear from your response (which you unfortunately did not direct TO me) is why you said, “That is NOT impossible, nor is it ridiculous. One has to be very careful interpreting mortality data” without elaborating whatsoever.

    I did not characterize the 40% proportion as “impossible”. [Mike Yeadon did.] I wrote, “The Home event is partly blamed on COVID-19, with the ‘new disease’ being the second leading cause of NYC Home deaths. As if people suddenly dying at Home of a respiratory virus weren’t ridiculous enough, a full 40% of Home deaths in the entire U.S. that attributed COVID-19 as underlying cause in April 2020 were in New York City, where less than 3% of the country’s population lives!”