COVID-19 Data, Sources, and Why?

To help sift through all the BS and politicization of this situation, we will sift through the data and sources to help isolate the REAL experts and the REAL reliable numbers.  That why when some nutjob trys to spit numbers to justify taking away your rights, you have better, more sound, ammunition, per-say.

But, first thing we need to get out of the way:

Are the numbers from China usable?

  • They fudge their economic numbers [1, 8].
  • They fudge their political numbers, such as government killings at protests.
  • They punished doctors that started speaking out about the virus [2,  4].
  • They tried to fudge numbers about the SARS outbreak [7].

The Diplomat, a journalism site focused on events in Asia, published a mildly fair overview of the data situation in china, and at the end states “the world should not automatically embrace the new numbers coming from the country. With a cautious note about China’s statistical unreliability in mind, we should continue to closely observe…” [2]  Even Brookings Institute, a reliable economic think-tank, doesn’t trust numbers coming out of China [1].  Even the unreliable and biased Time reported the unreliability of China’s data [5].  Then there is PBS, who takes a softer approach to criticizing the Communist Party of China, still provides ample facst as to why they can’t be trusted [7].   The Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo said during a CNBC interview [6],  “incredibly frustrating” to work with the Chinese government to obtain data on the coronavirus, “which will ultimately be the solution to both getting the vaccine and attacking this risk.”  And that is true.  Then we have the “U.S. intelligence community” and their “classified report” claiming China’s numbers are fake.  But, they are extremely hard to trust, period.  But, Bloomberg then starts to go off on this political conspiracy theory about an “attempt to divert attention from surging deaths in the U.S. and other Western countries” and then makes the sadly biased comment “There was no way for serious data faking to occur in today’s China…” [9].  Notice they added the word “serious.” So they secretly admit there was some faking but too coward to openly say it; bias.  Even the New York Times, as dishonest as they are, seems to support this CIA claim. [11].   And to expose unreliable reporting from outlets such as Bloomberg, Forbes reports: “Maybe our numbers aren’t entirely giving the full picture of the coronavirus“, China health officials said on Tuesday [March 31, 2020][10].

Now, with all these sources, some more reliable than others, we can paint a more complete picture of the reliability of the data coming out of China.  And their data, given the totality of analysis and reporting; is unreliable.

Since we CAN determine that the numbers coming out of China are unreliable, does that make them unusable?  Yes.  If you incorporate skewed data into a formula, the result is skewed.  If you add false information into a equation, the solution is incorrect.  The same logic applies to using China’s numbers when determining the truth about COVID-19.

People will argue something like “but you can still get a general idea,” but can you?  You aren’t even sure how accurate your “general idea” is when it is dependent on inaccurate information… Your “general idea” may be WAY off, but you wouldn’t know.

What about The World Health Organization?  Are they reliable?

Welp, considering THEY are allowing China to pick the people who will investigate human rights violations says it all.  That’s like putting Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin on the Human Rights Commission to help better the world… yet, that is exactly what the WHO did.

“On Jan. 19, the WHO told the world “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China.”

What they didn’t tell the world, but they knew all too well, is that China was engaged in a campaign of lies and cover-ups to hide the viral devastation their nation had unleashed. In fact, China had been tracking the person-to-person transmission for more than a month by the time that tweet went out.

The same goes for Bruce Aylward, a senior official at the World Health Organization who infamously hung up on a reporter asking about Taiwan’s (far more effective) handling of coronavirus. Mr. Aylward was apparently afraid of offending the Chinese regime” [12].

Even the left leaning, The Hill, reported that “Tedros [WHO Chief] apparently turned a blind eye to what happened in Wuhan and the rest of China and, after meeting with Xi in January, has helped China to play down the severity, prevalence and scope of the COVID-19 outbreak.”[13]

But listen to what the WHO says.  “We have met the [Chinese] president. We have seen the level of knowledge he has on the outbreak, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a Feb. 12 briefing. “Don’t you appreciate that kind of leadership?”  “China has done many good things to slow down the virus,” Mr. Tedros added. “There is no spinning here.”

So, there we have it, the WHO is nothing more than China’s mouth piece and lap dog.  Where they will just regurgitate China’s numbers.  Rendering them, unreliable as well.

So, what numbers can we trust?  Can we even trust the numbers being calculated by America?

Well, the CDC told all of America to include just about anyone that died as a COVID-19 death… even if it is possible they died from something else [14].  In their statement, it reads: “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.

So, what if it was the seasonal flu, which kills tens of thousands, every year?  Are they just going to assume another 20,000 deaths was COVID-19 and not what it actually may have been?!  Guess so.

So, a couple of states jump on this.  The more they report, the more money and resources they get.  New York’s death count jumped by an additional 33% just by added the deaths of those who they assumed died by COVID-19 or may have contributed.  But, they aren’t sure, they don’t know, it wasn’t confirmed.   A lot of other states are following suit.  Adding to their numbers UNCONFIRMED cases of people that MAY have died by some other means BUT counting them as though it was COVID-19.

But then we get the Defenders of Statism using arguments like “We need to trust the expert educated guesses.”  Well, let’s do to Logical Thinking Experiment.

  1. We must trust expert opinions.
  2. Supreme Court Justices are experts on justice.
  3. We must trust Supreme Court Justice opinions as Justice.

Very logical right?  But what happens when we throw in this truth:

4.  The Supreme Court opinion ruled in favor of slavery, Separate but equal, and Japanese Internment Camps.
5.  Therefore, given the logic above (1-3), we must trust the Supreme Court opinions are Just because they are the experts.

Suddenly doesn’t sit well, trusting the experts.

The next Defenders of Statism may say: “We can trust experts on numbers, because number’s don’t lie.”  Let’s rephrase the logical expression to be more applicable.

  1. We must/should trust expert opinions.
  2. An expert is having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience.

In these two logical premises, we see something missing.  The fact that humans are prone to bias and error.  Holding tightly to Premise 1 and 2 is also known as Blind Faith.  Blind in that it avoids and hides from the the reality that even experts, can be bias and wrong.  But, let’s keep this logical expression going.

3.  NASA are experts in rocket propulsion and space travel.
4.  Therefore, we must (blindly) trust NASA’s expert opinions.

Sounds valid.  In fact, 99% of the time this is true.  But, again, has history proves, they are prone to error.  Serious error.

The Apollo 1 fire, Apollo 13 malfunction, and the Challenger explosion are all proof of their limited expertise.

But what about when it comes to research and studies?

  • In 1981 Harvard researcher John Darsee was found to be faking data in a heart study. Eventually investigators at the National Institutes of Health discovered that data for most of his 100 published studies had been fabricated.
  • Cardiac-radiology specialist Robert Slutsky, who in 1985 resigned from the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine after colleagues began to wonder how he turned out a new research article every 10 days. University investigators concluded he had altered data and lied about the methods he used. To establish verisimilitude, Slutsky often persuaded scientists more prominent than he to put their names on his articles.
  • William McBride, an Australian obstetrician, was hailed as a whistle-blowing visionary in 1961 when he sounded a warning about the dangers of thalidomide.  Two decades later, in 1982, McBride published a report about a morning-sickness drug called Debendox that, he claimed, clearly caused birth defects in rabbits. Merrell Dow took the drug off the market amid an avalanche of lawsuits.  But McBride had altered data in research carried out by assistants. The results showed Debendox had no ill effects. After years of investigation, McBride was found guilty of scientific fraud in 1993 by a medical tribunal.
  • In 1983, astronomer Carl Sagan coauthored an article in Science that shook the world: “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” warned that nuclear war could send a giant cloud of dust into the atmosphere that would cover the globe, blocking sunlight and invoking a climatic change similar to that which might have ended the existence of dinosaurs.  In a 1990 article in Science, Sagan and his original coauthors admitted that their initial temperature estimates were wrong. They concluded that an all-out nuclear war could reduce average temperatures at most by 36 degrees Fahrenheit in northern climes. The chilling effect, in other words, would be more of a nuclear autumn.
  • In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society’s November magazine. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater’s tail.
  • Summarizing a study on women and marriage by two Yale sociologists and a Harvard economist, several news agencies reported that single women at 35 had only a 5 percent chance of ever marrying, and unmarried women at 40 were “more likely to be killed by a terrorist.” Analyzing data from the 70,000 households the authors of the original study had not looked into what percentage of the over-30 women had made a conscious choice to put off marriage. Indeed, U.S. Census Bureau statistician Jeanne Moorman’s follow-up projections indicate that of unmarried women ages 30 to 34, 54 percent will marry; of those ages 35 to 39, 37 percent will marry; and of those ages 40 to 44, 24 percent will marry.

And there are hundreds, thousands more examples of how Blind Faith in the experts can be more harmful than good.

So, here we are again, proving that Blind Faith in the CDC’s numbers is sheer sheep-like willing ignorance of the possibilities of bias and error.  The CDC is funded by the federal government.  The federal government continually expands power and control.  Therefore, we can conclude that the more powerful and well funded the government is, the better the CDC is.  Motive for bias.  The staff and “experts” are paid for and funded by tax payers too.  Motive for bias.  This isn’t even accounting for the real possibility of human error due to the fact they are counting anyone that died, unconfirmed, but may have shown symptoms of COVID-19.

These just INCREASE the risk of bias and error within the collection and interpretation of data.  New York’s death count suddenly jumped after the CDC put out their Alert 2 guidelines for counting even unconfirmed possible “expert guesses.”

There are even instances where states REMOVE death counts because of various errors.  Colorado’s death count fell because they removed duplicates [15].  Pennsylvania removed A LOT because of how unreliable their data collection (from the experts) was [16].  This just proves that there is an increased risk of bias counting and errors in data collection.

Therefore, even America’s numbers are inflated and skewed by including deaths of people who were unconfirmed and may not have even had COVID-19.

*UPDATE 5/25/2020*

Shocker, the CDC released a revised report which dropped the mortality rate to seasonal flu levels… 0.26% over all, and 0.05% for people under 49 years old…[17, 18].  “ultimately we might find out that the IFR is even lower because numerous studies and hard counts of confined populations have shown a much higher percentage of asymptomatic cases. Simply adjusting for a 50% asymptomatic rate would drop their fatality rate to 0.2% – exactly the rate of fatality Dr. John Ionnidis of Stanford University projected.” [18]


China manipulates their numbers.

The World Health Organization embraces manipulated numbers.

America inflates their numbers.

America slanders China for what the CDC officially recommends doing.

It’s almost like governments WANT scary numbers and statistical manipulation…

You make this pandemic scary enough, deadly enough, that the people are so scared they cry for help and big mommy daddy government comes to their rescue and people then start to really believe the government is their savior.

But, you don’t want it too deadly as to not kill off your loyal subjects and peasants or be unable to show how heroic the government is by controlling it and “flatten the curve.” The government wants to appear to be the hero of the people.  The champion of the common good.  Leads people to desire the protection of the government even more.

They you play politics as a distraction.  America blames China, China blames America, the WHO plays both sides.  And on and on it goes.  When BOTH desire to increase the fear and power over their people.  Or in China’s case, maintain the control and power over their people while America expands their power over the people.

Then those in government dependent careers, who are already in love with and dependent on the government, argue for more government resources, more government control over the situation, and will be the very ones who praise the expansion of government for more control in the future.

And this isn’t new in the history of world governments.  Not even new for America.

This is the greatest expansion of government control since Japanese Internment Camps of World War II.  Except, the entire population instead of one ethnic group is effected.  Remember, the justification for the internment camps was for “the greater good,” built off of fear of Imperial Japanese spies…

Now, change out “Japanese Internment Camps” with “forced quarantine” for the “common good.”  And change out “fear of spies” for “fear of COVID-19.”  So, government oppression and control remains the same in principle, just different tools and justifications for it.  If you defend and advocate for government forced quarantines for the common good, you, in principle, would defend Japanese Internment Camps…

How can you argue against Jim Crow laws, when they did the same thing in principle?  Jim Crow laws limited movement of American citizens, for, at that time, though incorrect, for the common good; “separate but equal” was the justification at that time, for the common good.  Now, thankfully, seen as racist laws, they were the same as now in principle.  But instead of imposing the same principles of governing on a select population, they are applied to the entire population, for the common good.

So at the heart of ‘why’ is this:

America, politicians and majority of its people, liberal and conservative, desire a socialist totalitarian state.  And you can’t say they don’t when they, the majority, support, defend, and advocate for socialist policies, efforts, and government actions and control…

Statistical manipulation leads to fear.

The government then swoops in and addresses those fears.

The people feel more willingly reliant on the government.

The government then assumes the responsibility for administration of goods and services for the collective, common good…



so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm

Definition of socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


The local, state, and federal governments collectively decided the administration of goods and services by, itself, determining what goods and services were “essential” and “non-essential” and then ordered the closure of “non-essential” for the collective “common good.”

America, by definition, implemented through threat of force, socialist policies.  And that is by definition.  period.

At the end of the day, don’t believe everything your told, even if it is in the form of numbers and fancy charts.  Think logically, rationally, critically, and free; especially if it is coming from a politically charged government…

Some Interesting Historical Quotes to Think About:

*Facebook can flag this as “misinformation” and continue to shadow-ban like Nazis all they want, but we base this entire article of reports and sources that they feel is official news outlets.  Just see all our citations above and sources below.  If flagged and banned, it is the logical critical free-thinking they fear.

  8. 2018 study by Yingyao Hu and Jiaxiong Yao of Johns Hopkins University.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: