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

Government Accountability

Bipartisan House Task Force to Investigate Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump

Published

on

In a rare display of unity, House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries announced their joint support for the creation of a bipartisan House Task Force to investigate the attempted assassination of 2024 presidential nominee Donald Trump. The task force will consist of seven Republicans and six Democrats.

“The security failures that allowed an assassination attempt on Donald Trump’s life are shocking. In response to bipartisan demands for answers, we are announcing a House Task Force made up of seven Republicans and six Democrats to thoroughly investigate the matter,” said Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries in a joint statement. “The task force will be empowered with subpoena authority and will move quickly to find the facts, ensure accountability, and make certain such failures never happen again.”

According to Speaker Johnson’s office, the House will vote on a resolution this week to formally establish the task force and appoint its members. The task force will have the full investigative authority of the House of Representatives, including the power to issue subpoenas.

The primary objective of the task force will be to investigate the circumstances surrounding the assassination attempt, identify security lapses, and hold accountable those responsible. The task force will also be tasked with making recommendations for reform to relevant government agencies and proposing any necessary legislation to implement those reforms.

The formation of this task force highlights the urgency and seriousness with which Congress views the attempted assassination of a presidential candidate. By working together, both parties aim to ensure that such a security breach never happens again and to reinforce the integrity of the electoral process.

As the House prepares to vote on the resolution, the nation will be watching closely to see how the investigation unfolds and what steps will be taken to address the security failures. The bipartisan nature of the task force underscores the commitment of both parties to uncover the truth and protect the democratic process.

Continue Reading

Biden Crime Family

Justice Department Finds Transcripts They Previously Denied Existence of in Biden Classified Material Investigation

Published

on

In a significant development, the Justice Department revealed to a federal judge late Monday that it possesses transcripts of President Joe Biden’s conversations with a biographer, contradicting earlier denials. These transcripts are related to the recently concluded criminal investigation into Biden’s handling of classified materials before he became president.

The special counsel, Robert Hur, issued a report in February describing Biden as “a well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” This report has prompted a surge of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuits aimed at obtaining records related to Hur’s investigation. These requests have come from various news outlets and conservative groups seeking to scrutinize Biden’s mental acuity and fitness for the presidency.

Concerns about Biden’s cognitive abilities were exacerbated by a poor debate performance against Donald Trump, leading Biden to announce on Sunday that he would not seek reelection. It remains unclear how his exit from the race will affect the Justice Department’s handling of the materials from Hur’s investigation.

The Justice Department has argued that releasing the audio of Biden’s interviews would violate his privacy, potentially lead to abuses like deepfakes, and discourage other witnesses from agreeing to recorded interviews. Biden has asserted executive privilege over these recordings to prevent House Republicans from holding Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to release them.

During a hearing last month, DOJ lawyers informed U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich that processing the audio files of Biden’s interviews with writer Mark Zwonitzer would be highly time-consuming. They claimed that the recordings spanned 70 hours and reviewing audio for classified material is more challenging than reviewing written material.

Justice Department lawyer Cameron Silverberg stated at a June 18 hearing that no transcripts from the special counsel existed. However, Silverberg’s recent court filing revealed that the DOJ had found six electronic files, consisting of 117 pages of verbatim transcripts, created by a court-reporting service from Biden’s discussions with Zwonitzer. Some of these conversations contained classified information, but DOJ policy barred pursuing charges against a sitting president.

In an unexpected reversal, the Justice Department reached out to Robert Hur directly after initially resisting requests from the Heritage Foundation to contact him about materials he used for his report. Hur confirmed he relied on the Biden-Zwonitzer audio recordings and a portion of Biden’s handwritten notes regarding a memo about Afghanistan.

Judge Friedrich has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday morning to address these developments. The Justice Department has indicated it will discuss with the parties seeking access to Hur’s materials whether Biden’s notes should also be processed for potential release.

The Justice Department’s admission of the existence of transcripts in the Biden classified material investigation marks a crucial turn in the ongoing scrutiny of Biden’s handling of classified information. As legal proceedings continue, the implications for transparency, presidential privacy, and the political landscape remain to be seen.

SOURCE: POLITICO

Continue Reading

Trending

Leaked Emails Expose BBC’s Unverified Reporting and Political Bias

Published

on

In a startling revelation, newly leaked internal emails from BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem have unveiled serious allegations against the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The emails suggest that the BBC has been broadcasting news without verifying claims or seeking evidence, raising concerns about journalistic integrity and ethical practices within the organization.

The leaked emails highlight a pattern of unverified reporting, particularly concerning coverage of the conflict in Palestine. Ruhayem, a Beirut-based correspondent, criticized the BBC for airing sensational stories about alleged atrocities committed by Hamas fighters without proper verification. These unsubstantiated claims were broadcast repeatedly, despite the lack of concrete evidence.

In one instance, Ruhayem detailed how graphic allegations about Hamas fighters were allowed to pass unchallenged on air. “From the start, it was evident that unverified claims of the most atrocious acts by Hamas fighters against Israelis were being circulated and repeated at the highest levels,” Ruhayem wrote. He pointed out that BBC presenters often failed to ask for evidence or clarify that the claims had not been verified.

The emails also accuse the BBC of sensationalizing news stories to push a specific political agenda. Ruhayem suggested that the unverified allegations were part of a broader strategy to garner political support for Israel’s actions. “The BBC’s approach to reporting has contributed to shaping public perception in a way that supports Israel’s actions,” he stated.

Ruhayem’s emails describe how the repetition of unverified and sensational claims served to reinforce extreme portrayals of Israel’s enemies. This biased coverage likely influenced public opinion and political discourse, aligning with Israeli propaganda efforts.

The leaked correspondence reveals deep-seated grievances among BBC staff regarding the organization’s editorial direction. Ruhayem noted that despite numerous evidence-based critiques from staff members, BBC management failed to address these concerns. Instead of fostering thorough examination and inclusive discussions, the management opted to continue the problematic editorial practices.

In an email dated May 1, 2024, Ruhayem wrote to BBC Director General Tim Davie and several departments, detailing the editorial failings. He emphasized the need for mechanisms to ensure accurate and ethical reporting, which he claimed were ignored by the management.

The allegations of journalistic malpractice have significant implications for the BBC’s reputation and credibility. Broadcasting unverified information and sensationalizing stories undermine the core principles of journalism: accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. These practices not only misinform the public but also erode trust in the media.

The leaked emails call into question the integrity of the BBC’s news coverage and highlight the need for rigorous journalistic standards. As the organization faces scrutiny, it must address these issues to restore its standing as a trusted news source.

The bombshell leaks from Rami Ruhayem’s emails expose serious flaws in the BBC’s reporting practices, revealing a troubling pattern of unverified reporting and political bias. As the media landscape continues to evolve, maintaining journalistic integrity and accountability remains paramount. The BBC must take urgent steps to rectify these issues and uphold the highest standards of journalism.

Continue Reading

Trending