A friend directed me to this X post by John Beaudoin, author of The Real CdC(and someone whose tenacity and dedication I admire):
Beaudoin said,
To those saying there was no new pathogen and that COVID was flu or 100% iatrogenic Doctors lived this in early 2020 There was a prothrombotic pathogen. There is no way around data. Not even fraud COVID waned in virulence of thrombotic effects when the vx stepped into the thrombosis signal and amplified it >10X D69 Thrombocytopenia et al > 1,200 EXCESS deaths, ages 25-54, USA, 2021-2023
The effects of the COVID shot are not my area of interest or investigation; I recently made my current position on the COVID shot clear in this article.
My interest is in John’s position that the death data he posted is evidence of there being a new pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) and new disease (COVID) in late 2019/early 2020.
1) Your graphs are monthly deaths in the age group that include D69 anywhere on the death certificate. Those conditions can be co-incidental to or result from any number of maltreatments in the hospital or adult home and are not themselves indicative of a novel pathogen or new disease.
2) I see no real increase in UCoD [underlying cause of death] for D69 in the age groups 25-54 from 2020+. Numbers are very low w/many weeks of suppressed values.
3) PCR+ tests for SARS-CoV-2 were used to cover actual causes of death across age groups from the very beginning. Mass testing began in hospitals with existing patients.
4) I don't know any serious analyst who says "COVID is flu." That doesn't make sense for many reasons. I've certainly never said it and I believe the WHO lied when it proclaimed there was a new disease it called COVID-19.1
5) If 25-54 YOs are of interest, the most dramatic relative increase for ACM in the age group on a city level (which is much better for analysis that a country or state) is NYC.2 Most of the increase blamed COVID-19 as underlying cause and most of it occurred in hospitals. Would you say those data [are] evidence of a novel pathogen?
6) I note that the increase in D69 as a MCOD is dwarfed by the increase in drug/alcohol induced deaths (UCOD) for this age group.
D69 MCoD [Multiple/contributing cause of death] shows increases after fall 2019 flu shot, with spring 2020 democide, with summer 2020 unrest, and after the fall 2020 flu shot and with Dec 2020 COVID shot.
A follower from Brazil saw the X discussion about increases in use of code D69 among 25-54 year olds in the U.S. as evidence of a novel pathogen. He sent me raw data for his country and said, "It [the code] is rarely used. Interesting."
Below are my depictions and observations of the raw data he provided.
First, the all-cause mortality context for January 2019 - January 2024.
The monthly pattern in 2021 resembles a descending staircase; 2022 likewise defies normal and COVID-era mortality waves. Low numbers in December 2021 and December 2022 contribute to a nonsensical rhythm that makes the data appear unreliable. So, caveat emptor on the specific codes.
Deaths coded D69 (Thrombocytopenia, purpura, other hemorrhagic conditions) underlying cause are low. Predictably, when COVID-19 (U07.1) was issued, there was a dip (i.e., coding guidance for U07.1 "ate into" other UCoDs)
COVID-coded deaths "arrived" in Brazil off-season (April 2020) and all-but-disappeared by the end of 2021.
Deaths listing a D69 code as a contributing cause exceed those listing as Underlying Cause. Contributing cause shows similar strange pattern as total deaths, with increase in 2024. Overall, the numbers are numbers very low for a country with a population of 214 million and 100,000 a month. As the follower who sent me to data said, the code is apparently not used much.
Deaths that list COVID-19 and a D69 code are extremely low: less than 1% of all deaths listing COVID-19.
The table below shows the distribution of specific codes where D64 is listed as underlying cause of death.
Although many countries use the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD) taxonomy as a coding framework for death certification, medical billing, and other purposes, that system is dynamic and evolving rather than fixed. Moreover, how the codes are applied still varies both between and within countries.
In 2021, former death-certificate clerk Joy Fritz wrote an excellent article on the fungibility of coding and the bureaucratic incentives that often drive and direct it.
She said,
“Most of us assume mortality statistics are exempt from Mark Twain’s saw about statistics being lesser in value to lies and damn lies. But the nature of cause-of-death data capture belies the reliability of mortality statistics as structurally sound. Mortality statistics tabulated from death certificates should not steer public health recommendations or medical decisions. Using them as a metric for scientific research or public policy is about as prudent as building a skyscraper on a sandbox.”
Fritz is American, but there’s every reason to believe her observations apply to Brazil and most countries. Social and medical trends, time pressures, bureaucratic demands, financial or political incentives, and the prevailing zeitgeist or ortgeist can all shape what a death certificate ends up saying or not saying. My “favorite” example is the inverse relationship between Alzheimer’s as underlying cause of death versus flu/pneumonia, seen in Figure 12 here.
Returning to John Beaudoin’s argument, I’m not seeing how the pattern he identified is a signal for or evidence of a novel pathogen and new disease. Wouldn’t we at least expect to see the pattern worldwide in some measurable or meaningful way if that were a possibility? I believe so.
I replied to John, "John, I was helping you back in 2020 and started you on Twitter. Your focus was your lawsuits with Gov Baker against the mask mandates. But I could do so no longer because of your arrogance and berating of anyone who 'was not an engineer'.
Jessica,
I replied to John, "John, I was helping you back in 2020 and started you on Twitter. Your focus was your lawsuits with Gov Baker against the mask mandates. But I could do so no longer because of your arrogance and berating of anyone who 'was not an engineer'.
YOU ARE WRONG HERE. SHE IS RIGHT."
- Laura
Laura Kragie MD biomedworks.substacks.com