Connect with us

Trending

CDC Caught Altering Minnesota Death Certificates That Listed Covid Vaccine’s as Cause of Death

Published

on

The death certificates for every death that took place in Minnesota between 2015 and the present were made available by someone (who must remain anonymous), which gave us the chance to check the CDC’s accuracy in reporting US death statistics. Naturally, the CDC isn’t.

As we will show, the CDC is hiding references to the COVID vaccine on Minnesota death certificates, which are already extremely uncommon due to the widespread denial of vaccine side effects by the medical establishment.

In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.

Background

When someone dies, there is a death certificate that is filled out for official/legal purposes. Death certificates contain a lot of information (some states include more than others), including the causes of death (CoD).

The term “causes of death” refers to the medical conditions that ultimately contributed to the decedent’s passing. A condition does not have to be the direct cause of death for it to be considered a CoD; it only needs to have some effect on the decedent’s medical decline. CoD would apply if a person had high blood pressure, then experienced a heart attack, followed by cardiac arrest, which resulted in death. However, since it had nothing to do with their passing, this unfortunate person’s ingrown toenail cannot be considered a cause of death.

This is from the CDC’s own guidance explaining how to properly fill out CoD’s on a death certificate (you don’t need to understand the difference between Cause A, B, etc for this article):

The critical thing to keep in mind is that the person filling out the death certificate writes a text description of the CoD’s, but doesn’t assign the ICD 10 codes for the CoD’s.

That’s the CDC’s job.

ICD 10 Coding System for CoD’s

There is a fancy coding system that is used to classify the many thousands of medical conditions that can play a role in death known as the International Classification of Diseases. Every few years, it is updated/revised to keep up with new medical (or bureaucratic) developments, as new conditions are discovered and old conditions are reorganized or reclassified.

The current iteration of the ICD that was used for the deaths we’re looking at is the ICD 10 (that’s the 10th version). It is basically a hierarchical classification system:

There are codes for practically every random weird thing you can think of:

These are categories themselves – a code can go as 7 characters long:

Source

ICD 10 Codes for Covid Vaccine Side Effects

There are two ICD 10 codes for vaccine side effects that can be broadly used for the covid vaccines – T88.1 and Y59.0:

T88.1 – Other complications following immunization, not elsewhere classified.

Y59.0 – Viral vaccines

(There are other ICD 10 codes for various specific complications or side effects of vaccines, but the point remains that an ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects exists.)

CDC – Centers for Data Concealment

The CDC assigns ICD 10 codes after receiving the death certificates from the various states. When the algorithm is unable to confidently assign an ICD code to the text description written on the actual death certificate (for example, due to confusing spelling or a text description that does not make much sense), a small percentage of cases are decided by CDC staff. I verified this with a biostatistician employed by the Department of Health in a US state (I’m withholding the name in order to maintain my persona grata status). The person who obtained the Minnesota death certificates also confirmed with state officials that the CDC assigned the ICD codes to their data.

What a death certificate identifying a covid vaccine as a CoD *should* look like

In the MN tranche, there are three death certificates that either have T88.1 or Y59.0 on them. Surprisingly, the other two are for a covid vaccine while the first is for a flu vaccine reaction.

Note – when used below: 

UCoD (Underlying Cause of Death) refers to “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury.”

MCoD (Multiple Causes of Death) refers to “the immediate cause of death and all other intermediate and contributory conditions listed on the death certificate.” (everything else)

The first death certificate contains a covid vaccine ICD (below), and it looks like the CDC was trapped and could not avoid putting it on without fundamentally rewriting the death certificate, because the vaccine complication is unambiguously listed as the UCoD (this death certificate is saying the person was killed by a heart attack caused by the covid vaccine within minutes of injection):

The second death certificate the CDC deigned to assign a vaccine ICD (and not only one but *BOTH* vaccine ICD codes(!!)) feels like perhaps a rogue CDC employee was working that day and snuck it in:

In any event, as we can clearly see, both T88.1 and Y59.0 are indeed appropriate for when a covid vaccine is listed as a CoD. Thus the CDC cannot claim that there was no official ICD 10 code that could be used to designate covid vaccines (or any other excuse).

The FRAUD:

With that introduction, below are 7 death certificates from Minnesota that identify a covid vaccine as a cause of death where the CDC omitted the corresponding ICD 10 code identifying a vaccine side effect when the CDC assigned ICD codes to the death certificates.

The first death certificate that was falsely completed provides a crucial detail emphasizing both the fraud and the blatant double standards for assigning CoDs.

This death certificate identifies both a covid vaccine and covid itself as contributory CoD’s (in the last row highlighted in yellow, vaccine underlined in green, covid in blue):

  • “covid vaccine second dose 10 hrs prior to death”
  • “history of covid infection in May 2020” (about 7-8 months prior to death)

Any remotely objective person would presume that if a condition that occurred 7 months prior without any clear link to the actual death still nevertheless meets the standard for being identified as a CoD, then surely a condition or event that occurred a mere TEN HOURS before death identified by the doctor filling out the death certificate merits inclusion as a CoD.

Yet, the CDC assigned U70.1 – “COVID-19, virus identified” – for covid, but neglected to assign T88.1 or Y59.0 for the covid vaccine.

A second point to highlight is that we see that anything mentioned as a CoD, even in the context of “history of” that had (presumably) been long resolved, is a legitimate CoD insofar as assigning an ICD 10 code and epidemiological data are concerned.

This decedent suffered a cardiac arrest that ultimately led to her death *ONE DAY* after being vaccinated.

(For the record, I am not bothered by the “though it’s not clear as to any mechanism for how the vaccine could have led to the cardiac arrest” line. This death occurred February 24, 2021 – well before there was any sort of public awareness about the multiple plausible mechanisms by which the vaccine could cause heart damage. So to me, whoever filled out the death certificate was a gutsy fellow willing to identify a covid vaccine on a death certificate that had his name on it.)

Fraudulent Death Certificate #3

This death certificate doesn’t merely identify a covid vaccine, it explains that the decedent “felt sick after the vaccine” and died 4 days later from a heart attack. Yet, no T88.1 or Y59.0.

This death certificate provides that the decedent received her second dose of Pfizer 18 days prior to her death.

Here we have a 65-year-old male who was killed by a heart attack 12 days after getting vaccinated.

This particular instance is noteworthy. The family had to exert pressure on the coroner to include the most recent COVID booster on the death certificate, according to someone involved with this death. In addition, a family member submitted a VAERS report on their own behalf after the patient’s medical professionals refused.

Furthermore, the CDC applied W34 as the UCoD. What is W34 for?

‘accidental discharge and malfunction from other and unspecified firearms and guns.’

There is no mention of any firearms mishaps on the death certificate.

Especially on a death certificate with other ICD 10 misdemeanors, one would have to wonder how such an incorrect code came to be. It is unlikely that “Y590” or “T881” would be “misspelled” or mistaken for “W34” by an algorithm.

Perhaps the failure to include T88.1 or Y59.0 here could be excused if there were no other instances of fraudulent omission of vaccine ICD codes on other death certificates and the CDC didn’t regularly assign U07.1 for a covid infection that resolved a year ago.

At minimum, this death certificate should contain T88.0 – ‘Infection following immunization’ – to document the breakthrough infection (which is a subject for a separate article as this seems to be fairly widespread).

Additional Observations

The following table shows the date of death and age for all 9 death certificates shown above that identified a covid vaccine as a CoD:

It is striking that 7/9 died before May 2021. This is odd – if anything, the deaths should skew later, not earlier. Vaccine adverse events were denied – with maximum prejudice and then some – for many months before the medical mainstream has finally (begrudgingly) started to acknowledge that the covid vaccines can trigger potentially lethal pathologies (in exceedingly rare instances to be sure).

Coroners may have been discouraged from including a covid vaccine on death certificates due to “administrative” interference, as evidenced by the concentration of death certificates that did so at the start of the rollout.

Another noteworthy tidbit here is the age of the decedents: every single one is a senior citizen, and the average age of the decedents is 80. This is important to highlight because whereas young people “dying suddenly” stands out, there has been much less attention or acknowledgement of the covid vaccine’s devastating toll upon the old and frail, where deaths – even those that occur in close proximity to vaccination – are readily attributed to prior health conditions.

Finally, the CDC’s actions raise the question of whether it is completely qualified or reliable enough to be the custodian of the country’s epidemiological data. Many of the datasets that support entire fields of study are managed by the CDC. All data under the control of the CDC is potentially suspect if the CDC is willing to fraudulently alter the data (or even if the CDC is simply too incompetent to prevent data corruption). This is especially true if the data relates to a contentious political or social issue. To put it mildly, the implications of this are disturbing.

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Cliff Taylor

    July 3, 2023 at 11:55 pm

    If the US had a functional Depts., Justice the CDC personnel would be tried for 1st degree murder for EVERY death in association with the experimental mNRA gene therapy Death Shot.

    The CDC is nothing more than a subsidiary of Big Pharma’s genocidal dollar machine.

  2. Haircuts

    July 4, 2023 at 3:53 pm

    Thank you, I have just been looking for information about this topic for ages and yours is the greatest I’ve discovered till now. But, what about the conclusion? Are you sure about the source?

  3. Hairstyles

    July 4, 2023 at 7:04 pm

    I just like the helpful info you supply for your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and take a look at again here regularly. I’m somewhat certain I抣l learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the following!

  4. Beauty Fashion

    July 5, 2023 at 3:34 pm

    I appreciate, cause I found exactly what I was looking for. You have ended my 4 day long hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

  5. Pingback: CDC Caught Altering Minnesota Death Certificates That Listed Covid Vaccine’s as Cause of Death – BREAKING-NEWS.CA

  6. Josephina Nelmes

    July 7, 2023 at 2:33 pm

    This article provides a concise yet comprehensive overview of the topic. Well-written!

  7. trinity newswave

    August 3, 2023 at 5:29 pm

    Your article offers practical advice that can be applied in various situations. Thank you for the actionable tips!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Trending

NBC News: President Biden Knew in June He Would Pardon Son Hunter

Published

on

NBC News has reported that President Joe Biden’s public declarations about not pardoning his son, Hunter Biden, may have been part of a deliberate strategy to navigate the political and personal fallout of the situation. According to sources close to the matter, the president had been considering a pardon for Hunter as early as June, despite repeatedly and emphatically denying it.

Following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges in June, President Biden faced mounting questions about whether he would use his presidential pardon powers to shield his son from legal consequences. At the time, Biden’s response was clear and direct: “I will not pardon him.”

This stance was reiterated by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who told reporters as recently as last month that the president’s position had not wavered. “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is ‘no,’” she stated.

However, NBC News now reports that Biden privately discussed the possibility of a pardon with senior aides shortly after Hunter’s conviction. Two sources familiar with the internal conversations revealed that while the president maintained a public stance of non-intervention, the idea of a pardon “remained on the table.”

The report suggests that the public denials were not merely a refusal to answer the question but rather a calculated move. The president and his advisors reportedly decided that maintaining a hardline stance against a pardon was politically advantageous—even if it didn’t reflect the reality of their ongoing deliberations.

For Biden, the decision to publicly reject the idea of a pardon likely served dual purposes. First, it allowed him to distance himself from accusations of favoritism or nepotism at a time when Republicans were increasing scrutiny of his administration’s alleged “two-tier justice system.” Second, it bought time for his team to assess the fallout of such a decision, all while deflecting immediate criticism.

Now, with his term winding down and no re-election campaign to face, Biden has moved forward with the pardon—a choice some critics view as the culmination of a plan to shield his son while minimizing political costs.

The revelation that Biden’s public statements about the pardon were at odds with his private considerations has sparked fresh criticism. Opponents argue that the president’s actions erode public trust, painting him as willing to mislead the American people for personal gain.

“This is a betrayal of the public’s trust,” said one Republican lawmaker. “The president’s words were clear—until they weren’t. This raises questions about what else he may be misleading the country about.”

Supporters, however, argue that Biden’s decision reflects a father’s love and loyalty, underscoring the deeply personal nature of the issue. “This is a man standing by his son during a difficult time,” said one Democratic strategist. “People may not like it, but it’s human.”

With Hunter Biden now pardoned, the president faces the challenge of addressing the broader implications of his decision. For critics, this marks another chapter in what they see as a pattern of political favoritism. For allies, it’s a reminder of the personal challenges leaders face in balancing public duty and family loyalty.

Either way, the revelation that Biden’s public denials were part of a calculated plan is certain to fuel debates about transparency, accountability, and the limits of presidential power in the months to come.

SOURCE: NBC NEWS

Continue Reading

Politics

Adam Schiff Urges Senate to Block Kash Patel’s FBI Nomination

Published

on

In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.

Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.

As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.

Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.

The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.

For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.

Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.

The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.

Continue Reading

Trending

President Biden to Issue Pardon for Son Hunter Biden Ahead of Sentencing

Published

on

In a surprising turn of events, President Joe Biden has decided to grant a pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, a move expected to be announced Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the matter. The decision marks a significant reversal for the president, who has previously stated on multiple occasions that he would not use his executive powers to pardon or commute his son’s sentences.

The pardon will encompass both Hunter Biden’s federal gun charges, for which he was convicted, and his guilty plea on federal tax evasion charges. The gun charge sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 12, with the tax evasion sentencing set for Dec. 16.

Sources within the administration revealed that President Biden made the decision over the weekend after extensive discussions with senior aides. The pardon comes as Biden, 82, nears the end of his presidency with no reelection campaign to consider. Publicly, the president has consistently distanced himself from the idea of granting clemency.

In June, following Hunter Biden’s conviction on three federal gun charges, Biden unequivocally stated, “I will not pardon him,” reiterating his commitment to letting the judicial process play out. First Lady Jill Biden echoed this sentiment during a June interview, emphasizing respect for the judicial system.

Behind Closed Doors

Despite these public assertions, insiders say the possibility of a pardon has been under consideration since Hunter’s June conviction. Two individuals familiar with the internal discussions noted that while Biden publicly denied the idea, the option remained on the table, with close aides advising against making any premature decisions.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre consistently reinforced the president’s stance during press briefings, most recently stating earlier this month that the position remained unchanged.

The pardon decision comes as Republicans continue to accuse the Biden family of corruption and allege preferential treatment by the Justice Department. GOP criticism escalated after a plea deal involving Hunter collapsed in July, leading Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint U.S. Attorney David Weiss as special counsel in the case.

The move to pardon Hunter Biden has drawn mixed reactions. Critics argue it undermines the justice system, while supporters, including former White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, argue it’s within the president’s constitutional authority. Eggleston told NBC News, “The clemency power has few limitations and certainly would extend to a Hunter Biden pardon.”

The president’s relationship with Hunter Biden, who has struggled with addiction and legal troubles, has been a focal point of political attacks. Biden has often defended his son, describing him as “one of the brightest, most decent men I know.”

While the pardon eliminates the prospect of prison time for Hunter, it undoubtedly reignites political controversy, especially as Republicans scrutinize the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

As the announcement looms, the decision underscores the tension between personal loyalty and public accountability, setting the stage for heated debates in the weeks to come.

Continue Reading

Trending