SUMMARY:
" ... What was reported on August 23, 2020 was 161,392 fatalities caused by COVID-19
Had we used the 2003 CDC guidelines, our estimates are that we would have roughly 9,684 total fatalities due to COVID-19.
That’s a significant difference."
DETAILS:
"In this interview, Dr. Henry Ealy, ND, BCHN, better known as Dr. "Henele", a certified holistic nutritionist and founder/executive community director of the Energetic Health Institute, reviews how U.S. federal regulatory agencies have manipulated COVID-19 statistics to control the pandemic narrative.
He earned his doctorate in naturopathic medicine from SCNM.
After graduating from UCLA with a bachelor of science in mechanical engineering, he worked for a major aerospace company as a primary database developer for the International Space Station program.
He holds over 20 years of teaching and clinical experience and was the first naturopathic doctor to regularly teach at a major university in the U.S., when he headed up a program at Arizona State University on bio-anxiety management.
As he points out, he’s an avid data collector. In October 2020, Henele and a team of other investigators published a paper in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, titled,
“COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective,”
... which details how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has enabled the corruption of case- and fatality-reporting data in violation of federal law.
The team started looking at CDC data on COVID-19 cases and fatalities in mid-March 2020. He explains:
“What I started doing on March 12 was going through all the data we could find from the Italian Ministry of Health and South Korea.
We couldn’t validate any of the data coming out of China.
... What we were seeing out of Italy and South Korea was that we were going to be concerned about people who are over 60, over 70 years of age with preexisting conditions.
... we were expecting the same kind of trends here
… I started tracking the data on a daily basis from each state health department, and then making sure that what the CDC was reporting was matching up.
What we started to see, very early on, were some significant anomalies between what the states were reporting and what the CDC was saying.
... the variance was growing with each day.
... we knew public health policies are going to be based upon the data, so accuracy is of paramount importance.
Then we started delving in a little deeper into how the CDC was supposedly collecting their data.
That’s where we saw the National Vital Statistics Systems (NVSS) March 24 guidelines, which were very concerning, and we saw the CDC adopt the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists paper on April 14.
... it was all done without any federal oversight, and it was all done without any public comment, especially scientific comment.
... We started to see discrepancies in the state of New York alone, in the thousands of fatalities.”
... in March 2020, there was a significant change made to the definition of what a COVID-19 fatality was.
... there’s a handbook on death reporting, which has been in use since 2003.
There are two key sections on a death certificate. In the first part, the cause of death is detailed.
In the second part, contributing factors are listed.
Contributing factors are not necessarily statistically recorded.
It’s the first part, the actual cause of death, that is most important for statistical accounting.
March 24, 2020, the NVSS updated its guidelines on how to report and track COVID-19-related deaths.
“They were saying that COVID-19 should be listed in Part 1 for statistical tracking, but [only] in cases where it is proven to have caused death, or was assumed to have caused death,” Henele explains.
“What was really concerning about this document was that it specifically stated that any preexisting conditions should be moved from Part 1, where it has been put for 17 years, into Part 2.
... ‘We’re going to create exclusive rules for COVID-19 and we’re going to do a 180 for this single disease …’
The big problem with that is that now you remove the ability for a medical examiner, a coroner, a physician, to interpret [the cause of death] based upon the collective health history of that patient …
You remove their expertise, and you say, ‘You have to count this as COVID-19.’
That takes on an added measure when you incentivize it financially, and that’s what we saw with some of the Medicare and Medicaid payouts …”
Who has the authority to do this?
The answer is “no one.”
A federal agency has the ability to propose a data change, at which time it would be registered in the Federal Register.
At that point, federal oversight by the Office of Management and Budget kicks in, and the proposed change is opened up for public comment.
Since they did not register the proposed change, there was no oversight and no possibility for the public to comment on the change.
Basically, what happened is that these changes were simply implemented without following any of the prescribed rules.
“They acted unilaterally, and that’s not how [it] is supposed to work,” Henele says.
... To identify the culprits, Henele and his team have sent out formal grand jury investigation petitions to every U.S. attorney and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), requesting a thorough, independent and transparent investigation.
“We did it at both state and federal levels.
We have sent physical copies to every U.S. attorney and their aides.
We sent out over 247 mailings in October [2020],” Henele explains.
“We sent out an additional 20 to 30 to various people at the Department of Justice …
... The consequences of that change in the definition of the cause of death where COVID-19 is involved have been dramatic.
For the full implications, I recommend reading through Henele’s peer-reviewed paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”
“We’ve accumulated about 10,000 hours of collective team research into this [paper].
It’s been reviewed by nine attorneys and a judge for accuracy.
It’s gone through the peer-review process before being published.
... this matches up with an admission by the CDC in late August 2020, at which time they admitted that only 6% of the total death count had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause of death.
The remaining 94% had had an average of 2.6 co-morbidities or preexisting health conditions that contributed to their deaths.
“For absolute 100% accuracy, we’d have to do something like what we were just alerted to by a whistle blower in Florida, where they’ve actually gone in and reexamined every single death certificate and the medical records with them.
What they found was that roughly 80% of the fatalities were wrongfully classified as COVID-19 fatalities,” Henele says.
Mainstream media have justified pandemic measures “based on the science,” yet the very foundation of science has been violated.
... In their paper, Henele and his team detail a timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and federal laws that impact data handling.
Here’s a partial summary:
... In 2005, the Virology Journal published research demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine has strong antiviral effects against SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) primate cells.
This finding was hailed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Henele notes.
In other words, 15 years ago, Fauci admitted that hydroxychloroquine works against coronaviruses.
This is public record.
As reported in “The Lancet Gets Lanced With Hydroxychloroquine Fraud” and “How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created,” the myth that this drug was useless at best and dangerous at worst was purposely created using falsified research and trials in which the drug was given in toxic doses.
This fraudulent research was then used to discourage and in some cases block the use of hydroxychloroquine worldwide.
As noted by Henele, “It’s not science.
We’re in this very weird faith-based model of science, which isn’t science at that point.”
In 2014, Fauci authorized $3.7 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).
In 2019, WIV received another $3.7 million. In both instances, this funding was for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses.
... March 9, 2020, the CDC alerted Americans over 60 with preexisting conditions that they might be in for a long lock down out of safety concerns.
March 24, the CDC changed how COVID-19 is recorded on death certificates, de-emphasizing preexisting conditions and co-morbidities, and basically calling all deaths in which the patient had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test a COVID-19 death.
“We have, legitimately on record, people who’ve died in a motorcycle accident listed as a COVID-19 death.
These are not fictitious things that we’ve made up.
Rhode Island had over 80% of their fatalities at one point in either assisted living centers or hospice care.
Why are we testing people in hospice care and life care?
That’s another interesting question,” Henele says.
April 14, 2020, the CDC adopted a position paper from a nonprofit, the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists, which identifies every single methodology for how to report a probable COVID-19 case, a confirmed COVID-19 case, an epidemiologically-linked or contact-traced COVID case.
“What’s so incredible about this is the standard of proof for a probable case is literally one cough.
That’s all a physician needs, [according to] this document, to validate that that person is a probable COVID case,” Henele says.
“And it gets worse.
On Page 6 of that document, Section 7B, it explicitly states that they are not going to define a methodology to ensure that the same person cannot be counted multiple times.
So, what we end up with is a revolving door.
Now, in terms of new cases, the same person can be counted over and over and over again, without being tested, without having any symptoms.
All they need to do is be within 6 feet of someone [who has been deemed positive for SARS-CoV-2] and then a contact tracer can say, ‘OK, well, that person is [also] positive.’
When we looked at data from last week, roughly 27% of the people who were said to be positive actually had a positive test.
That means 73% were just told ‘Yeah, we think you got it.’
And that’s good enough, because we’re in this faith-based model of science, instead of a verifiable framework for science, which we’re supposed to be based on.
That person then cannot go back to work until they show a negative test.
Well, let’s say they get tested 13 times.
Guess what happens?
That’s 13 new cases, when it really should only be one.
So, there are major flaws, and the issue that I think a lot of scientists like myself … have with this document and its adoption
is that there was no oversight,
and there was no public comment period to question some of the obvious flaws in what they were defining as data collection
— let alone to ask a very simple question:
‘You’re the CDC, you’re supposed to be the pinnacle of this.
Why do you need to outsource rules and criteria for data collection to a nonprofit entity?’
That doesn’t make much sense to me.”
So, when you start seeing IHME [Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation] out of the University of Washington — which is heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to the tune of $384 million in two installments — when you see their data being used at federal levels, you go and look at the Federal Register and you say, ‘OK, where is the 30 to 60 days that we were supposed to have to comment on the use of that data?’
... In addition to the manipulation of fatality statistics, the statistics of “cases” were also manipulated.
Traditionally, a “case” is a patient who is symptomatic; someone who is actually ill.
When it comes to COVID-19, however, a “case” suddenly became anyone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test, or worse, assumed positive based on proximity to someone who tested positive.
... Henele expounds on this issue, noting:
“The CDC specifically enacted what’s called a test-based strategy, which we’ve never done before in medicine for anything.
What that test-based strategy means is if you test positive, you got [COVID-19].
But what they didn’t do for the PCR testing was they didn’t identify the agreed upon number of cycles across all states across all labs that are testing.
What most people don’t know is that the closer you get to zero in terms of cycle times, the more likely that the result is going to be negative.
The closer you get to 60, the more likely that it’s going to be positive.
Well, we’ve never seen a document coming out of the FDA, coming out of the CDC, coming out of any of the state health departments, that says, ‘We need all labs to be at this specific cycle [threshold].
And if a person is not deemed positive with that number of cycles, then they are not positive.’
So, there’s just flaw after flaw after flaw.”
... Most labs used cycle thresholds above 40 — as recommended by the CDC and the World Health Organization — which exponentially increased the likelihood of a positive test, even among completely healthy and noninfectious individuals.
The only justification for all of this is that it was done to perpetuate the narrative that we were in a raging pandemic, which was then used to justify the unprecedented destruction of personal freedom and the economy.
... something that is very dangerous scientifically, and very dangerous for public health policy, which is control of data — the ability to manipulate data … and if you can control the data, you get to control the narrative …
... To understand how we got to this point, please consider reading Henele’s paper, “COVID-19: CDC Violates Federal Law to Enable Corruption of Fatality-Reporting Data.”
As noted by Henele:
... My team is a team of volunteers.
We all do this in our spare time.
We’re not making any money.
We’re not going to seek to make any money off of this.
We’re doing this because we believe in this country.
We love this country and we love the people of this country.
When I see people suffering, I have to help.
I got to get in and help.
... For additional information, or if you want to help, you can email Henele and his team at COVIDResearchTeam@protonmail.com. You can also use your voice and actions to support an investigation into the CDC’s actions."
